Colvin redux

by Aaron Wherry

Richard Colvin is in Ottawa today to testify at hearings of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The morning was mostly a repeat, with some added detail and commentary, of his testimony at the special committee last year. Early reviews are in from the Globe, Canadian Press, CBC, Canwest, Star and Sun.

The Colvin encyclopedia is fully up to date with the latest relevant links and background.

Meanwhile, Derek Lee and Jack Harris responded yesterday to the government’s response to the opposition’s question of privilege on the House order to produce documents. Tom Lukiwski and Jim Abbott then commented for the government. The Speaker thanked all for their submissions and said he would now be considering the matter with a judgment to be delivered in due course.

The text of the discussion if available here.

Colvin redux

  1. "The Speaker thanked all for their submissions and said he would not be considering the matter with a judgment to be delivered in due course."

    I think you meant "now" here, not "not."

  2. "The Speaker thanked all for their submissions and said he would not be considering the matter with a judgment to be delivered in due course."

    Presumably, you meant the Speaker "would now be considering the matter".

    I hope.

    • *Scene*

      ( Speaker steps into lavish Speaker's quarters through dark curtains, peels off latex mask to reveal the face of the Prime Minister. Cue thunder)

      "It's in the Hansard now! Nothing can stop me! Muhuhwahahawahahahah!!!!!!!"
      (Cue lightning, thunder)

      Scene ends.

  3. The problem Colvin talks about was caused by Paul Martin's detainee policy. Martin took Canada to Kandahar totally unprepared for what we would face there (including a corrupt governor and likely torturer) and the Conservatives were handed a mess when they took over. A hot war with completely inadequate procedures for the consequences of that hot war.

    • And the conservatives have had 4 years to fix it, which they haven't done. Instead, they are actively blocking attempts to fix it.

    • Martin didn't make statements in the House that contradict the evidence slowly trickling out of this transparent and accountable government, prorogue to avoid the issue and act in defiance of an order of parliament.

      Which are issues well outside detainees.

      If Martin and the Liberals broke the rules, let's hear about it. A full public inquiry from the start of the mission through to today ought to satisfy those of us who are morally outraged that our government could be complacent in the torture/extortion of people, financially and politically supporting an 'ally' who was inciting violence against coalition forces and a key player in the drug trade and ordered the murder of international NGO staff.

      Most of which happened post-Martin.

      Let's stop playing Liberals against Conservatives and find out what happened. There is more than enough blame to to give to both sides and we shouldn't hide from the truth of our countries actions; regardless of how damning and totally unacceptable they are.

    • So your theory is that the government was reluctant to criticize its predecessor Liberal government? That instead of taking action and explaining why, they instead lied repeatedly and went to great lengths to keep the lid on so the Liberals wouldn't look bad?

    • Isn't it the job of a peacetime military to prepare for any wartime eventuality?

  4. The Martin government decided to take the Kanadahar mission.

    1) They didn't seem to know the Kandahar region had a corrupt governor and likely torturer.
    2) They didn't kseem now that the war was going to be a hot one.
    3) They didn't seem to have proper equipment or a proper detainee policy.

    • The Harper government decided to continue the Kandahar mission.

      1) They don't seem to know the Kandahar region had a corrupt governor and likely torturer.
      2) They don't seem to care that the war is a hot one.
      3) They don't seem to have proper equipment or a proper detainee policy.

    • So you are accusing our troops of war crimes then?

      Why do you hate our troops so much? Stop aiding and abetting the Taliban by criticizing the government.

  5. So why is Harper hiding Martin's incompetence?

    • I've been reading the liveblog Somewhere Else and don't think anyone is going be able to hide much of anything before this thing ends.

      The Government should do itself a favour at this point and call a proper inquiry into the whole Afghanistan mission, why it happened, how decisions were made, its conduct, including detainees issues, and everything else. Something like the Chilcot inquiry in the UK.

      This won't be pretty, and there will be lots of occasions for both parties to squirm, but I think it would be quicker and better than the alternative, which is to deal with all the relevant issues ad seriatum, and in isolation.

  6. There is soooo much contradictory evidence in all of this: the war, the countries, the attitudes, the military, the diplomats, the politicians, nationally, internationally, Geneva conventions, barbaric Afghans, and on and on and on.

    And what good would a full public inquiry do? It woul point out that all of this was extremely complicated, that yes, absolutely mistakes have been made, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think anyone will be able to prove that any of those mistakes were by malice or that our western military, diplomats and politicians acted as barbarians in any circumstance. My god, what are we hoping for, angels going off to war?????

  7. I question some people's aim in all of this. What's to be the bull's eye here? To be able to imprison some Canadian military personel? To imprison some Canadian high ranking politician? To award some Afghan fighters with medals?

    I can't wait what Karzai's responsible actions will be in case the speaker of our House rules in favour of Derek Lee's motion. (Why did you not step into the house, Mr.Lee, when another motion regarding foreign affairs was being voted on in our House????????)

    • ac·count·a·bil·i·ty
         /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪlɪti/ [uh-koun-tuh-bil-i-tee]
      –noun
      1. the state of being accountable, liable, or answerable.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *