National Post Onside For Open Disclosure?

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd recommend three articles from the NP. A Question of Torture may be the best thing in the weekend papers: Major Plante's MA thesis on detainees is here. Portrait of an Envoy is a fair, and thus admiring, portrait of Colvin. And Jonas talks sense on Afghanistan (though I disagree with implicit premise re. Canada/NATO/UN obligations: only the USA had a casus belli - did UK ever get NATO to invoke mutual defence clause re. Eire & IRA using it as base of operations?). I don't know who should be more alarmed by my recommendations, the National Post or me. If I start wearing blue sweater vests, I'll know I'm the one who's lost it. If the NP continues to publish fair, sensible articles and comment, we'll know they are actually serious about surviving, and, having moved to the centre, perhaps even thriving. I've got to go, my piano teacher's coming...Oh Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Blatchford: Globe's Best Lawyer vs. Govt

"The second thing is, that if witnesses are called from the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or DFAIT as the branch is always called - as could happen, since some of their folks were involved when Abdullah was being held in Pakistan before coming back to Canada - I suggested they be allowed to testify from behind lace hankies or parasols, so as to reflect their greater delicacy and less tolerance for the bad behaviour that CSIS and RCMP types allegedly tolerate more easily." That's Blatchford on Oct 15-16. And that's precisely why the Globe has her reporting on the emails today. The Globe, generally sympathetic to the government, is having an argument with the Cons. The Globe wants all information relative to torture released and the Govt's refusing. So when the Globe obtains redacted copies of Colvin's emails, it gives them to Blatchford to report. The Globe is saying, "Look Govt, there's nothing to be afraid of, even Christie agrees. And we will play fair, we promise. See, we let Christie report this story. C'mon fellas, release the documents, OK?" It's precisely because Christie is on record as in-the-tank for Hillier & all the other bully boys, that she has openly derided DFAIT's concerns about abuse/torture (that is to say, she derided all recognised legal and moral standards for treatment of captives), that she makes sure to absolve the entire Canadian military of any blame in her email article, before all the evidence has been revealed, only intuiting blame for those limp-wristed DFAIT folk, that she was chosen to write this article. She's so biased in favour of Con position, having her write it precludes any Con bias against some lefty conspiracy out to get them. She is, in effect, the Globe's best possible lawyer to plead their case to the government. I hope the Cons indeed listen to her/Globe.

Good Job Opposition, Media & Bloggers

I was pleased to see the Opposition had the sense to keep torture as their top subject in QP and that the Committee has followed through on the privilege question to make sure the information hijinks stop: the Speaker will hear arguments Monday. It is paying off as the Govt inevitably gets caught in their own web of deception: I have never read a CP story that verged so close to disdain as this one. CP is always so neutral, but the problem here is the Govt is hanging itself and there's no way to not report that. HarperBizarro found an almost eerily relevant story about ministerial responsibility: read MacKay for Jung, as far as minister forced to resign? But important not to lose focus - we need a full accounting of the facts. A token resignation to satisfy critics would be insufficient. So we must be careful not to ask for what isn't yet justified, although I think it's true to say that if you read through that CP account, the PM & ministers have now misled the House on several occasions, accidentally or intentionally, one can't say as yet. And this is why all the documents must be released. The media seem more pissed off than ever: they may not be allowed to lead with the torture story every day, but by Gretzky, they're going to compensate by tracking down every detail and hounding this story to the ends of the earth. Quite heartening (everyone hates being manipulated). All we observe may just be incompetence wrapped in paranoia (though to be this incompetent is also a firing offence), but everything points toward a more suspicious conclusion. If we keep on this fundamental question, the truth will come out, sooner rather than later. Canadian & Afghan lives and honour demand no less. We're getting there. Keep hammering away. We're closer every day. And keep the right serious tone, as befits such a serious issue. Observing how effective the Opposition has been by combining their efforts and focussing their attention is inspiring: "El oposición unido, jamás será vencido!?"

Colvin vs. Mulroney - Read News Back2Front

G&M B2F: Mr. Mulroney, who was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policy adviser in 2006, said he did not recall briefing Mr. Harper on detainee issues in that period. But he said that after he moved to the Foreign Affairs department in early 2007, he briefed then-Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay – who is now Defence Minister – but he did not describe those briefings. The clash, according to sources, came when Mr. Mulroney issued instructions for diplomats to register complaints with the Afghan government if evidence emerged that a transferred detainee was tortured. Mr. Colvin responded with a memo insisting that Canada had to monitor the detainees – and Mr. Mulroney copied a rebuke to a long list of recipients. He said that after long debate inside government, senior officials decided in April, 2007, on a “diplomatic contingency plan,” and Mr. Colvin responded by reopening the debate, muddying the waters when officials needed to know it was time to act. And he said he asked Mr. Colvin to express his opinions over the phone before he put them in writing. The view that I muzzled him or any other official is wrong,” he said. But he insisted that he never tried to shut down Mr. Covin's reporting. Mr. Mulroney dismissed as speculation Mr. Colvin's claim in testimony last week that all detainees transferred by Canadian troops were likely tortured, adding that after he became co-ordinator for Afghanistan, he demanded that diplomats distinguish in their reports between hard fact and speculation or opinion. “I can't say whether he was or wasn't,” Mr. Mulroney said. He dodged the question when asked whether he is certain that none were transferred before then. And when asked about a prisoner at Kabul's Sederat prison that Mr. Colvin reported in June, 2007, had been whipped with cables and shocked months before, Mr. Mulroney admitted he did not know if the detainee was transferred by Canadian troops. Mr. Mulroney insisted that before reports appeared in The Globe and Mail in April, 2007, Ottawa had no evidence that transferred detainees might have been tortured, but he conceded that Canadians did not monitor what happened to them until May, 2007. Mr. Mulroney said that by the end of 2006, Ottawa realized it had to arrange for Canadian officials to monitor detainees in Afghan jails – as the British and Dutch did – but needed to set up a system staffed by Canadian civilians. The government had arranged in 2005 for the Red Cross to monitor detainees, but the agency did not report to Canadian officials – and Mr. Colvin reported in 2006 that it did not get enough information to locate prisoners. Etc.

HST Diversion, Torture, Media & Alastair Campbell

Alastair Campbell's "One Week Rule", ie. make sure no negative story for Labour/Govt lasted beyond a week, since it's extended negative stories that the public can eventually have time to grasp that really hurt parties/govts, is in effect. "Diabolically divisive" HST legislation leads CTV, the only media that counts for Cons. Torture is down to 7 minute mark, a couple of minutes later on CBC, Radio-Canada & TVA, although, journalistic consciences pricked, the pieces are relatively long, sceptical & contextualised. "We didn't lead, but hey, we did our jobs". But just as everyone knows that almost no-one reads beyond headlines, let alone to the end of stories, so we all know that newscast viewership drops off severely, second by second. The plan was clear from the beginning, get "our" generals and, to a lesser extent, "our" diplomat on the news to offer rebuttals targeted at our potential voters, then change the channel, eight days, Wednesday to following Thursday, one more than ideal, and the story may hang on till the weekend in the op-eds, etc., but really, as far as the Govt is concerned, it's over. "Who cares if 50%+ don't believe our story? It's the minority who might vote for us we care about."

Everyone on the inside knows this is the game. Most are proud they made the torture story hang on as long as it did. After all, Canada's responsibility to respect human rights in the country we're occupying (is that politically incorrect? should I say liberating?), not to turn over the inhabitants, Afghans, to be tortured, and so endanger Canadian lives, quite apart from the horrors visited on the detainees: who cares? Graeme Smith? Hippy. Colvin? Fool. He was told to shut up and fall in line and he wouldn't. He insisted on doing his job exactly as we claim a diplomat should. Doesn't he know that's all BS, an (ig)noble lie we tell ourselves to give our lives meaning, while we talking monkeys all fight to climb the greasy pole? Well, after Washington, maybe he can be seconded to the UN, or transferred horizontally. Maybe he'll understand his career is over until/unless there's a new government (independent public service? surely you jest) and leave DFAIT to join his journalist friends, since he seems so determined to write and report what he sees and hears. Best for all concerned, really.

Except for the Canadian soldiers and civilians who have suffered and will continue to suffer more attacks than they would have otherwise, leading to deaths and injuries, because of individuals, families, clans, hell the whole province, whose alienation is a result of knowing of someone who was handed over by Canadians to be tortured, as they see it. Except for the actual victims of our collaboration in torture. Except for the possibility of prosecution, whether domestic or ICC. Except for the honour of the country, except for our own honour and morality.

I know all these sick games, inside and out. But I just can't play along. I never have. And I remain foolish enough to hope that there may be sufficient honest people out there, in the media, in the Opposition, online, and in Canada in general, to keep this story alive, probably the most immediately important story as regards Canadian lives & ideals.

I don't know how Graeme Smith doesn't go insane, being there and watching the BS here. He came closer than ever to crossing the line in frustration in a truly excellent interview on CTV Newsnet. Clark is very good, a huge step up from Duffy, but what a pleasure to watch a tetchy print reporter like MacCharles have a chance to sit in the chair. I also enjoyed her interview with the MPs and hope if she'd had more time she might have asked Rae about his links to Mulroney, so Rae's desire to be excessively pliant and sympathetic to Mulroney might be better revealed.

It is clear the media would like to continue to follow this story. And the Globe & Mail has proven hearteningly offended by the government in defence of its reporters & Canadians. I may, as noted, remain naive, but I really don't think this story is going away. As I have said, the information, witnesses & corroboration are out there and it's all going to come out, sooner or later. The government may figure as long as it comes out in short bursts, easily buried by distractions, and with the dead periods of the holidays and the Olympics interrupting, they will remain safe. I don't think so. The committee will continue. "Contradictions" will become ever clearer. Canadians, and the media especially, identify with Colvin. And I think, or at least I'd like to believe, that enough journalists have gone to Afghanistan, or know colleagues who have, or have simply reported on stories about Afghanistan, that they themselves understand how important this story is, that torture has had, and will continue to have, awful consequences for Canadian & Afghan families. And those existential consequences for ordinary human beings, effectively betrayed by the Canadian government, will keep them on the story.

But it's also fundamental for Canadians who've followed this issue to continue to talk and write about, not to give up. If Richard Colvin was willing to put it all on the line, the least the rest of us can do is respect his public service, in the truest sense of the term, by keeping the issue alive. It will all come out, sooner rather than later. If the Cons were smart, they would get it all out at once, asap. The more they repress it, the more it grows inside them, like a tumour. They should have let the MPCC do its job. But Cons are Cons, full of cunning and lacking wisdom. Their tactical victories are always prefaces to their strategic defeats. Keep the faith y'all, the truth is coming like a steam train, picking up speed, and you don't want to try, or even be seen to try, to block it in its tracks. It's coming and it's going to smash all obstacles before it. Watch out. It's coming.

Mulroney: Inverse Ratio Of Bafflegab to Truth

"Confusion" translated=Anger. "Consensus"=Shut Up. "Facts" vs. "Secondary Information"=Don't Use Your On The Ground Judgment, Accept the Party Line (ie. makes diplomacy meaningless). "Phone Consultations"=Way To Squash Contradictions, ie. "Fix the Facts". Phone calls=sofa government cabals. Basically, Mulroney just confirmed, if you know how to listen and translate, that the GoC, and Mulroney foremost, had as their party line, "Listen kid, this is a difficult enough job already, we don't want to hear anything contradictory. Get it pre-approved by phone before you put it on paper". But this is precisely why the bureaucracy supporting responsible government has always demanded a paper-trail. The refrain is ALWAYS, "if it's not on paper, it doesn't exist and is useless". Mulroney & Co. advocated a return to the worst of arbitrary management, as a way to cover their asses. What a load of capacity-building BS. Colvin did his job exactly right, listened and judged, and made sure to pass on his information and on-the-ground judgment by email to all and sundry, leaving a clear paper trail. Mulroney & Co. didn't want to know, wanted to stick to the party-line at all costs, shut down anything that contradicted the "consensus". And so obviously, they were furious when buddy kept on writing and emailing his reports about probability of abuse of detainees. That didn't fit their narrative. It was actually a disaster, esp. as he sent his reports so widely, since it meant they knew they had just signed a terrible detainee agreement and would have no way to avoid admitting what they, what everyone, knew, that there was a very real risk, a probability, a quasi-guarantee even, that detainees would be tortured. Mulroney is a disgrace. I'm sorry to hear Bob Rae is so tight with him. As diplomats go, David Mulroney is to Saul Rae as Milli Vanilli is to Ray Charles. How far we have fallen.

Jingoism: Last Refuge of Desperate Scoundrels

That's all they've got? How desperate are the Cons when they've now got Baird on point with MacKay, launching into incoherent jingoism, and cowering behind false legal defences vs. parliamentary supremacy and contrary to information management laws (Hillier & Gauthier, v-à-v other civilians, primus inter pares?)? Excellent questions by all, particularly Siobhan Coady. The details damn them. They are going down, as long as the Opposition & media keep on them. They have nothing left but screaming & trying to drag everyone into their muck. They can either have the documents come out, bit by bit, and suffer Chinese political water torture, or have them come all out and maybe lose a couple of ministers and a PM quickly. But the Committee MUST man up. Don't just "request", "REQUIRE" ALL RELATED UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS POST-HASTE. National security is BS and everyone knows it. They wanted another committee meeting today? Pass another motion, explicitly REQUIRING all necessary UNREDACTED materials POST-HASTE. You are Parliament. You are supreme. Enough BS. Ask Raymond Chrétien, who's on the Hill today, what he thinks of diplomats doing their job, sending warning memos, and being scapegoated for doing the right thing.

"Ludicrous" Banerjee & That Mystery Envoy

Banerjee: "Abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan has been common knowledge. I was told by one of my colleagues, a political officer at our embassy in Kabul, that his e-mails alerting Foreign Affairs headquarters about potential abuse of transferred detainees in Afghan prisons were ignored. One of Canada's former envoys also confirmed abuse in Afghan prisons was known since 2001." Given her phrasing and that she was the head of Canada's aid program in Afghanistan from 2003-06, it's reasonable to assume the mystery envoy is either Sigurdson, Alexander or Sproule. Of the three, who is most likely, do you think?

Further Banerjee: "Under such circumstances, the Canadian foreign affairs and defence departments' decision in favour of the unconditional hand-over of detainees to Afghan security forces involved questionable judgment. Or was it lack of intelligence gathering and analysis of the context? None of these provide defensible grounds for the way the detainee issue was handled. More serious, however, is that Colvin's warnings about the abuse and torture of transferred detainees - in effect violations of human rights - not only went unheeded, Colvin was allegedly asked to shut up. And this allowed the government to dig itself into a deeper hole."

Plausible Deniability, Again?

From Gomery Research, the probable excuse: Look, Colvin didn't use a marker and besides, were we supposed to know about this stuff? Enjoy: The use of this doctrine of “plausible deniability” as an effective strategy to avoid or deflect political fallout from a matter directly under a Minister’s purview was wielded most effectively in the early days of
the Mulroney administration during an incident known as the Al- Mashat affair. Briefly, Mohammed Al-Mashat was a former Iraqi ambassador to Washington and a familiar media spokesperson for his country during the lead up to the first Iraqi Gulf War.Very shortly after being recalled to Baghdad in 1991, he and his wife had entered Canada as landed immigrants in the retirement class.The ensuing public furor
over the arrival of a man so closely tied to the Iraqi dictatorship raised a political maelstrom.The government responded by declaring that the immigration process for Mr.Al-Mashat had all taken place completely at an administrative level within Immigration and External Affairs and that Joe Clark, the Minister of External Affairs at the time, could not be held responsible for what was obviously a highly sensitive and political decision because he was not made aware of the application.
The government held two individuals responsible for this administrative blunder: a high ranking senior official in External Affairs, Raymond Chrétien, and Mr. Clark’s Chief of Staff,Mr.David Daubney.While several issues were raised vis-à-vis the government’s deflection of responsibility for the matter on to a career official, thus circumventing the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which holds a Minister responsible for all actions taken by his or her department, it is with the government’s reaction to the role played by Mr. Clark’s Chief of Staff that this paper is concerned.
In a nutshell,Mr. Daubney failed to inform his Minister of the matter.He argued that although Raymond Chrétien and the departmental assistant had in fact forwarded the information to his attention, they had failed to properly highlight the item with a marker, which was the signal that this item was worthy of special attention.Secondly,he reported that the policy review system that he had implemented in the Minister’s office shortly after his arrival was designed to detect such important matters. For reasons he could not explain, the system was not followed. Further, he felt that even if he had seen the memo, it was unreasonable to expect him to know the name of every former Iraqi ambassador and that this was not his area of expertise (albeit if his Treasury Board job description is to be believed he was the Minister’s top political advisor on issues of foreign affairs). As it turned out, Mr. Daubney had actually read the crucial memo but subsequently lost it.89

Three Revealing Paras On Ethics from Treasury Board

"Evasion and deception of the testimony of many senior military officers", "politicians named and blamed public servants in public and argued over the correct meaning and application of the convention of ministerial responsibility" Hmm, plus ça change?: "Other notable values and ethics challenges of this period included three scandals in which both politicians and public servants were implicated. The first of these scandals—the 1991 Al-Mashat affair—involved allegations that federal officials had expedited the granting of landed immigrant status to Mohammed Al-Mashat, who had been Iraq’s ambassador to the United States and that country’s spokesperson during the Gulf War. During the inquiry into this affair, politicians named and blamed public servants in public and argued over the correct meaning and application of the convention of ministerial responsibility. The affair had an adverse impact on the convention of public service anonymity that had begun to decline for other reasons, including increased emphasis on service to the public and heightened media coverage of the public service.

A second scandal involved an ill-fated Canadian military mission to Somalia in 1993 that included the killing of a Somali youth. A commission of inquiry, appointed by a new Liberal Government in 1995, complained in its 1997 report(40) that the disgrace of the original events had been exacerbated by the "evasion and deception" of the testimony of many senior military officers. The Commission noted also that the government’s "decision to end the Inquiry prematurely in itself raises new questions concerning responsibility and accountability."(41)

The third scandal revolved around a 1993 commission of inquiry(42) into the infection of several thousand Canadians by tainted blood. Monique Bégin, who had been federal health minister at the time of the infections, offered to appear before the commission as "a matter of personal morality and integrity" and in recognition of ministerial responsibility as "the cornerstone of our executive government."(43) Yet, on the same day, General Jean Boyle, the Chief of Canada’s Defence Staff, declined to take any responsibility for the questionable conduct of the Department of National Defence in connection with the Somalia events and suggested that some of his department’s senior officers lacked integrity and moral fibre.(44)"

Maybe Colvin, like R. Chrétien, Made Mistake of Thinking Ministers, Military & Govt Had Brains

Are we back to this: "For his part, Mr. (Raymond) Chrétien told the committee, “What happened in the office of Mr. Clark was not my problem. I assumed that people would read these memorandums and understand them.”? So far it seems to me that a diplomat reporting on the detainee issue to people who should know about such things, probably figured warnings like the ones reported were more than sufficient. Colvin, passing on Red Cross warnings: “All kinds of things are going on”, "unsavoury conditions", “A lot can happen in two months,” “Canada's responsibility does not cease just because they [detainees] had been turned over to Afghan authorities”, detainee issue was “increasingly important, increasingly complicated and should be taken more and more into consideration.” Maybe he should have assumed that although we were at war, with the entire government, particularly DFAIT & DND, consumed by Afghanistan, they remained, or chose to remain, so obtuse he have scrawled across his reports, and screamed, like The Robot, in large loud words, "DANGER, TORTURE! DANGER, TORTURE!" Because obviously, telling all & sundry officials involved in Afghan issue, on assumption they might know something about country and conditions in prisons, that the Red Cross is warning that "all kinds of things are going on” in "the unsavoury conditions" of Afghan prisons, was not enough. It's not like anyone who's dealt with the Red Cross and its concern for neutrality might read that as HUGE red flag, is it? No, one must always assume one is dealing with willful imbeciles. Judging from Hillier's apparent continued schizophrenic misunderstanding of the Pushtun, "Farmers by day, Taliban at night!", that may well be the sad case.

Credibility

Who's more credible, the DFAIT officer who was forced to give testimony at MPCC and committee (not a "whistleblower", technically) and spoke clearly and logically, without extraneous comment, or the three buddies who spent half their testimony praising themselves and their institution. Take their extraneous words and imagine if Colvin had said them: "greatest foreign affairs department in the world, full of brave, smart foreign service officers, etc.etc." He could have: DFAIT's still got a better relative global rating among foreign offices than DND does among militaries. From 1944-1980/90s, DFAIT was considered the best foreign office in the world, hitting way above its weight. But that's all irrelevant. What matters are the facts. What are they? Well, the army-friendly, in camera, MPCC's investigation is seen as so dangerous the Govt has effectively shut it down. Colvin's memos have drastically different interpretations, apparently. An Al-Mashat/Shortliffe type miscommunication? We shall see. But how is it two civilians like Hillier & Gauthier have access to Colvin's unredacted memos and no-one else does? Gee, I wonder if there isn't some rule or something about letting civilians look at apparently top-secret information before committee meetings no-one else gets to see? I wonder. And I wonder when the Opposition will grow a pair and take these abuses head on. Mulroney & the Government gets to dictate when and how he testifies? Crikey! Finally, Opposition, you have the majority on the committee, you have parliamentary supremacy, don't be so chicken. You want names? Oblige Colvin, generals, etc., to tell you. They have to if you make them. And as far as getting the documents post-haste, the clerk may claim "request" is enough, and it may be, but one usually stipulates "requests & requires". I predict the government is going to claim the language isn't enough as stands. BS, of course, but a stronger initial motion would have avoided the ambiguity and subsequent fight and delay. If you want committees to be treated as grown-ups you have to behave as such, and not be so cowed and fearful. You represent us. Don't be chicken. We're not.

Is Our Government Really So Incompetent?

Forget the apple pie & motherhood statements. Listen carefully to the qualifications. Don't let yourselves be intimidated. Use your brains. Our leading figures re. Afghan mission, military and civilian, UNIQUELY among the UN forces, never heard or read of a single "credible" (ahem, "1st hand") report of torture occurring to the captives turned over to the Afghans? Graeme Smith taught them something new? They hope we read the REDACTED reports? All this makes me worry about the health and competence of military and civilian authorities. I don't mean just figuratively, I mean literally: are their hearing and eyesight really so bad? They never heard or read of any "credible" reports until Spring 2007? Or maybe they just don't read and listen to anyone but each other and their buddies? Should we believe that our authorities are really so myopic and deaf? Is THAT credible? Or what else might be going on? I wonder. So best case scenario, according to the blusterers, is our military and civilian authorities were UNIQUELY incompetent as compared to the other UN forces? That's reassuring. Maybe I'm uniquely optimistic, but I rather prefer to think we are somewhat competent, and any failings were not unconscious incompetence. But hey, maybe we do suck that much, in which case we shouldn't engage in any serious missions and efforts, military and civilian, anywhere. If this is true, one would have to become a small-government peacenik libertarian, since clearly government authorities, particularly the military, are dangerously incompetent, and the less government does, the better. And if you believe that, then you're incredibly gullible and/or pessimistic.

Huxley vs. GoC: Quick Off Topic - Bad New World

This shocks me. Since 9/11, our "harmonisation" and "information sharing" have quietly, through Orders in Council & regulations, mostly without legislation, Manley & Cons, sent us down a bad & stupid Big Brother path of quiescence: few complain, seemingly. Biometrics are bad news. Orwell & English were so proud of their liberalism. Now first they & USA, then always-desperate-to-imitate Aussies, and now us, going down a very dark path. Perhaps there's a generational & technological divide, between pre- & post-facebook generations, but to me, this is another segment of an already noxious, fast-growing wedge (gone past thin end). Generations of our peasant ancestors fought for our freedoms during the liberal revolutions of the post-Enlightenment, fought to maintain them against fascism and communism, and now, with a bored flip past back pages of papers, we're going to let soft totalitarianism do what hard authoritarianism & totalitarianism of absolutism, fascism & communism could not? No coincidence a remake of The Prisoner came out. Remember, standard should always be nothing, and justification for document measured against one'e one existence and right to exist. Echoing Eco, we do exist without our representations, I believe. Which Brit historian pointed out that before WWI, that is within memory, a Brit citizen would typically have no, that is no, zero, identity document? Always ask yourself, do we really need this, is this what is right in a liberal democratic society, or is temporary hysteria leading us down the path of implicitly and necessarily anti-democratic mechanisms, culture, and government of surveillance and control? Easy to create, hard from which to liberate. Beware.

Keep Up Focus & Demeanor; Parliament's Prerogatives

Keep calm, keep demeanor, don't let bluster fool you, keep your nerve, and follow leads. You set the agenda. They can run but they can't hide. They've trapped themselves. Keep on them, you've got them. Parliamentary imperatives compel the production of documents: McKay: "Mr. Speaker, here is what we will do. I will do him one better. We will look at all the documents that will be placed before the parliamentary committee, going back beyond the time that we took office. We will see what his government's record was and how it stacks up against the efforts that we have made to improve the conditions in Afghan prisons. We will look at all of that evidence and then we will see where conditions were improved, when actual investments were made and when the real work was done to improve the situation in Afghanistan, not the Liberals' lame effort." Said in response to Rae: "Mr. Speaker, the period in question is between January 2006 and the fall of 2007. I asked the minister a simple question. Is he now prepared, in the interest of transparency, to give the House of Commons all the information provided to him as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of National Defence, as well as that held by the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to this very important question? I do not wish to cause any offence."

Previously, Layton in response to MacKay: "Mr. Speaker, I assume now then we will get all the evidence about the visits that took place in those particular cases so we can see exactly what happened. Will the minister table them in this House as quickly as possible?" Said in response to MacKay: "Mr. Speaker, the facts and figures that the hon. member has put forward do not apply to prisoners transferred from the Canadian Forces. Those are broad-sweeping numbers that speak to the conditions in the prison. They do not apply to the numbers that were transferred by Canadian Forces. With respect to what we did, we stopped transferring when the agreement was not working; an agreement that we improved upon; an agreement that enabled unannounced, unfettered access to prisoners that we transferred. Let us talk about where the responsibility begins and ends. We took responsibility. We acted. We improved the situation and continue to do so."

Opposition: Keep Focussed, Keep Demeanor

Tomorrow, with Harper's return to QP, will be the first of three days where the Cons try to create a circus. Opposition must continue to keep a serious, prosecutorial demeanor, and continue to follow a dogged, coordinated questioning strategy. Whips, get your helpers ready: keep everyone under control. Even MacKay couldn't help ruefully admiring Marlene Jennings' self-control today. Stony, silent skepticism is your friend. Harper will try to provoke: DON'T rise to the bait! As for Wednesday at Committee, the Cons are already claiming to know what the generals are going to say, and one assumes Mulroney is considered "sound" as well, given his desire to rush back. They will be sworn in, I assume, but the problem is there are no effective sanctions for perjury before Committee. Remember how much witnesses' stories changed between committee appearances during the sponsorship & Mulroney scandals and when they showed up before Judicial Inquiries! The generals and Mulroney are making a grave mistake if they think they can bluster this out as in the past. The longer they keep to their pre-approved positions, the worse it will be for them when all comes out. Doubtless they've decided either they hang together or they will all hang separately. Foolish. They'll all hang, sooner or later, just worse the longer they dissemble. Mulroney is particularly egregious, a pure product of the Asian Division. Human rights, what dat? Trade, trade, trade, power, power, power, career advancement, career advancement, career advancement. Pathetic. Every day there are new documents, like this one. More will appear. There was a flawed system from the beginning, and after the mission moved to Kandahar and more Afghans were picked up, things got worse. Who knew what, when, and what did they do? Did they act in good faith asap? Did they try to withhold and censor information? By staking out a principled position from the beginning, thanks to Rae, Liberals can say "let the chips fall where they may" in good conscience. This party, this caucus, is free to pursue truth and justice. The Cons are caught. And the more they try to manage testimony and information behind the scenes, the worse it'll be for them. The committee, that is to say, Parliament, should not be shy about subpoenaing all the necessary documents. If I were advising the Generals, Mulroney, et.al., I'd tell them to think very very carefully about what they're about to testify to under oath. Same goes for Cons, Harper & MacKay in particular, and misleading the House. "Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you..".

Chicken Hawk Harper, Emphasis on Chicken

Mr. "I can take a punch" is running scared. I love lacrosse, but using that as an excuse to avoid QP? Bawk Bawk! What a pussy. He's a big man when it comes to getting Canadians injured and killed, and Afghans tortured, and beating on public servants, but when faced with the horror of eek!, QUESTIONS!, about his role in colluding in and covering up torture, he runs away. Poor liddle Preemie, do the big bad rational human beings opposite scare you? Maybe Bercuson, Cooper and the rest of the Calgary School can nurse him back to health by letting him suckle on their flabby old man boobs. Chicken Hawk Harper & Con chickadees, you can run but you can't hide. You're going down.

Torture: Good Job Opposition, Bloggers Must Do Better

Excellent QP & after by Liberals, and good opening questions by Bloc & NDP*. Try to control noise and heckling. I know it's hard to listen to Con nonsense. But you do your case no favours by playing into their hands with noise. Keep on message, stay serious. As for bloggers, too many are getting off-topic and playing silly political games that can only divide party supporters and confuse the point. Show some self-control, if you truly care about Afghan & Canadian lives, human rights and the honour of Canada, not to mention an independent, effective judiciary and public service. Focus on this, and don't get distracted.

*Though if NDP really does care about torture and Canadian and Afghan lives, should concentrate on Cons and not waste time with swipes on Iggy - there will be time enough for that. Anyone who reads me knows my long-established views on him. But what is more important right now, stopping a cover-up of collusion in torture and all that implies, or point-scoring? Let them use their time more wisely, for Canada's good. Ask yourselves, what would Bill Blaikie do? (Or Douglas, Knowles, et.al.?) And though I dislike such considerations, politically, focussed fire on the Cons will pay off handsomely enough for all - given the NDP's long-established positions, they should be secure in their situation.

All Opposition & Media re. Torture: Don't Get Distracted!

1. Content: The Cons & their allies are going to try every trick to distract Opposition and media from the torture cover-up. Don't let them. Keep focussed.
2. Form: a) Good job this past week, but must keep it up. Opposition parties: in QP, in media appearances, in committee, everywhere, keep a grave tone. This is the most serious issue imaginable, and you must not only treat it as such, but be seen as treating it as such. This means no heckling in the House, no jibber-jabber responses to jibes on panels, no responding to ridiculous claims in committee. When questions are asked of Government, the tone must be that of a serious, unamused, undissuaded prosecutor. In QP, the House must be deathly quiet, and when the Cons respond, they must look up and see the 162 grave faces of prosecutors staring skeptically back. Think Wolson, Rae, Serge Ménard & Comartin. That's how you do it. Don't let them drag you into the muck. That's what they want. They are going to try to turn QP into a madhouse so it just seems like another partisan game, same on committee, media appearances, panels, etc.. Don't let them. Let them be the only ones shouting and heckling. Control yourselves. I know it's hard, but the whips must designate others to help keep it together. Marcel Proulx did a good job last week, helping to keep the Liberal MPs in order. All opposition MPs must do likewise. The very timbre of your voices must be flat and serious. Skepticism, irony and quietly pointed sarcasm are all fine, if and when needs be, but try to keep to a "just the facts" tone. Repetition, repetition, repetition. The same questions, who, what, where, how, why & when. And most importantly, why not (an inquiry, let the MPCC do its job, etc.)? A grave tone, serious questions, repeated by all parties, in all forums, again and again. Think back to Stewart-HRDC, Sgro, Sponsorship. But this is far more srious than any of those cliche claims of corruption and mismanagement, and if you'll recall, hysterics were counterproductive. Repetition does the job.This is about collusion in and cover-up of torture and the deaths of Canadians as a result. So no screaming. When you speak, you are speaking for those Canadians who were attacked and died and injured as a result of torture's alienation of the Afghan population. They deserve your best, most serious conduct. And that is what you are asking of the Government. And what they can't give you, without exposing themselves to prosecution. So you are the prosecutors. Do your job as a prosecutor would. Get a hold of that bone and don't let go, no matter what colourful distractions are raised.

b) Ignatieff must ignore all the jibes about his record. My view of it is well known. But that is neither here nor there right now: we are where we are. He must get up and ask serious questions in a serious straightforward manner, WITHOUT his usual actorly flourishes. No literal pointing of fingers or shaking of papers. No arch tone. No presuming to speak for Canada, or bringing question back to himself. Don't play a TV prosecutor, BE a real prosecutor. Canada speaks through you, that's implicit, so you don't need to say it. Saying so looks weak. And "I, Michael" is a loser. So don't respond to attacks on what he's written, and same goes for Liberal MPs and other defenders. Do a Thatcher. Don't even respond, just repeat, in a flat, unamused tone, the question, and point out, every so often, that you're not getting an answer, so must keep asking question. Watch and learn from this.

c) Le Bloc s'est laissé un peu trop emporté dans sa manière de questionnement la semaine dernière. Les questions étaient bonnes, mais la façon de les poser, un peu moins. Je l'ai déjà mentionné, mais inspirez-vous de votre collègue, M. Serge Ménard. C'est comme ça qu'on s'y prenne. Disons, genre Duceppe, moins de Jean et plus de Gilles. Plus calme, plus sérieux. Moins le comédien, et plus le procureur.

3. Execution & Coordination. a) All Opposition parties MUST coordinate efforts, in House, in Committee, on panels, in appearances. QP questions should be coordinated, so order is most effective. Remember, this is about Canadians dead and injured because the Govt of Canada colluded in and covered up torture. As a matter of morals you should should do the right thing and put away partisanship, and it will, incidentally, pay off for all of you politically in the long-term. Or do you want a Harper majority and the whole thing covered up? Canada's soldiers and diplomats (remember Glynn Berry, Colvin's predecessor) deserve better.

b) The Liberals have done the right thing under Rae's management and made this a non-partisan issue by calling for an Inquiry. "Let the chips fall where they may" is absolutely right. All parties should show themselves "dignes" of this issue. Liberals should be fierce in questioning of Liberals before committee, and the other parties should be fair: trying to score partisan points off your allies on this issue is counterproductive. It plays to Con desire to portray it all as partisan games. Play fair with each other and there will be reward enough for all down the line, though that's obviously not why you should. Dead and injured Canadians is why.

c) Obviously, all witnesses before committee must be sworn in. Colvin is not only facing a catch-22 re. his testimony before the MPCC, by swearing an affidavit he exposed himself to perjury charges were he lying. All witnesses should be held to the same standard, however much weaker the sanctions from Parliament have been in the past, compared to what Colvin might face, at least it's something.

There is no question, as any politically-aware Canadian knows, that everyone knew. War crimes were ordered committed by the very highest authorities - we knowingly turned captives over for torture and then covered it up. As Drapeau pointed out on Coulisses de pouvoir today, Hillier was getting not just daily, but hourly reports on everything. Everything was centralised, and sent back to the PMO, as well as Defence and DFAIT. Are Mulroney, Bloodworth, Hillier, etc., willing to lie for Harper, MacKay & O'Connor, and be the only ones disgraced and prosecuted? I don't think so. He who lives by the careerist, dies by the careerist.

The hardest thing is not to let yourselves get distracted. Little political stories about this or that are all very well, but this is the big one. I know it's hard, I had to stop myself posting about Taber's incoherence: one day, the story is Rae has convinced convinced the OLO to stop free votes and hold the line on the gun registry, the next day Taber's claiming this means Rae's for scrapping it. I mean, I think when the overwhelming majority of Liberal MPs, members and voters feel one way about an issue and Rae's argument, as reported, is we shouldn't have free votes as they cause too much internal dissension, that hardly means we're going to enforce a whipped vote to kill the registry, now does it? But that's Taber being her usual useless self, and we've got to ignore it. Keep focussed, keep your eyes on the prize: justice for Canadians and Afghans. And this advice is also for bloggers. Keep on this torture issue, ignore the rest. This is the big one. Rise to the occasion.