18

One version of events


 

Because everything is easier to follow in timeline form, the Liberals have put one together on torture concerns in Afghanistan.


 

One version of events

  1. Gee, the Liberal timeline sure doesn't pay much attention to stuff that happened before 2006.

  2. admitting any responsibility is an anathema for the party and goes against it's own constitution.

  3. Nice try, but the issues of the past few weeks are not really about what happened before 2006. They're about whether Ministers of this Government have mislead the House about what's happened to detainees SINCE 2006.

    They're also about the circular reasoning of the Harper government: we don't investigate because there's no credible evidence AKA we don't need to look because we don't want to know; there's nothing in Colvin's memos signifying torture or abuse of detainees … but we won't let you see them; and, even if there WAS, he's not credible despite what our allies say about the same topics. There are also questions to be answered about The PMO's efforts to chill/halt the production of documents and witnesses to the MPCC, the courts and now a Parliamentary Committee … but not, apparently, to Military-friendly journos or retired generals.

    Our soldiers do their very best (and more) with the tools and mandates they have been given. Colvin's criticisms, loquacious as they are, are very clearly leveled against a senior military brass that didn't care to follow up on detainees once they were transferred to the Afghans, an embassy that preferred not to stir the hornet's nest, and a PMO that was actively scripting responses to inquiries about the detainee process … all the way from Ottawa .. to comport with their increasingly incredulous statements in the House.

    Afghanistan is a crappy place with little respect for the rule of law, human rights or democratic institutions. That much is clear as day. But official Ottawa really shouldn't aspire to these low ideals.

  4. Before 2006 detainees were handed to the United States.

  5. Hmm, if only someone would invent an institution that could try to organize and present these facts in an unbiased way…some sort of estate, perhaps…

  6. The Liberals could be entering into dangerous territory with this.
    My feeling is that the Canadian public is getting tired of this issue really quickly.
    Just my feeling.

  7. "Gee, the Liberal timeline sure doesn't pay much attention to stuff that happened before 2006. "

    Golly gee, you're right!

  8. They should hire you to write their communiqués.

  9. "Hmm, if only someone would invent an institution that could try to organize and present these facts in an unbiased way…some sort of estate, perhaps…"

    Don't you think CanWest-Global newspapers have enough to deal with right now? What with all the crying and everything?

  10. Interesting stuff.
    Wherry- if you do exist- I know you've been presenting everything without adding your own perspective, but, having followed all the information coming out so closely, does this Liberal timeline seem complete, honest, etc. to you? If you were compiling the timeline, would it look like this?

  11. This is MacLean's. They publish Mark Steyn without fact checking, as their own Paul Wells had to demonstrate one time.

    I'm sure all political parties are doing more evidence-based research than this mag is.

  12. If Harper didn't have his nose up Dubya's ass during the period in question – he might have recognized the potential for political embarassment on this file… and Stephen is nothing but highly tuned to political embarassment – principle and human rights seem to be – ahem – lower on his priority list.
    Look – this was a problem created by the Americans – Bush / Cheney specifically – it was their action until it got expanded into a full NATO action. They went from carpet bombing to a ground war – and it was only then that they started getting live captures to think about!
    If you bother to read the cronology – Canada only took charge of Kandahar about the time the Liberals departed government.
    I'll give Harper a grudging Mulligan for initial lack of governmental experience – but after that – his nasty black and white side shone through and he deserves everything he gets!

  13. Yes, you're right and that is a problem. What the heck WERE the Americans doing with the detainees we handed over to them, anyway? Oh, I guess when we had a concern about that we switched to handing them to Afghanis instead. Hmmm, hard to see how blaming Bush for torturing EVEN MORE THAN WE ALREADY HAVE is going to please the Conservatives. Perhaps you could explain? And would now be a good time to bring up Khadr?

  14. I actually think you've nailed what *really* happened quite nicely. At least I would like to think that's what *really* happened. And as you say, if they'd just come out with that, even after Colvin's testimony, it would have been the end of the story.

    But, how would that stick it to the Liberals? Come on now, everything the Conservatives do has to stick it to the Liberals!

  15. "Nice try, but the issues of the past few weeks are not really about what happened before 2006."

    Lets say, arguendo, that this is correct. Did you notice that no mention is made of who negotiated the agreement that Hillier signed in Dec '05 and what that agreement led to. Libs make it seem that Hillier negotiated deal by himself while Libs were busy fighting election. No wonder Libs are sensitive when it comes to military issues.

    "December 18, 2005: General Rick Hillier signs a detainee transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan while Canadians are in a federal election."

  16. Heh.

Sign in to comment.