10

What was known (II)


 

For the record, the NDP motion passed by the House on the evening of December 1, by a vote of 146-129, called for a “a Public Inquiry into the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to 2009.”

And the obvious implication of that time frame did not seem to escape the official opposition. Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae noted then that “the conduct of the previous government will be equally subject to scrutiny as the conduct of the current government.” Speaking to another motion later that month, Michael Ignatieff repeated the his side’s willingness to “examine the whole length of the mission in Afghanistan beginning in 2001 under the previous Liberal government.”


 

What was known (II)

  1. With respect, I believe Mr. Wells' suggestion is redundant, not moot. It's redundant to suggest an Inquiry that stretches back to the beginning of the mission because the House of Commons already voted in favour of an Inquiry that stretches back to the beginning of the mission (146-129) over a month ago. I believe it would only be a "moot" suggestion if either the inquiry were already happening, or if such an Inquiry happening in the future were some kind of metaphysical impossibility.

    • or if such an Inquiry happening in the future were some kind of metaphysical impossibility.
      Err.. you do remember who's PM, right?

  2. OH! – oops I did not read the original bill – cool

  3. Well exactly. Lets DO it.

    Oh wait! The Tories have fled in the night!

  4. Does the request for documents need an amendment to include the Chretien/Martin years 2001-2006?

    I'd be interested in the directives from the original Liberal agreement, given to soldiers in the field.
    I suspect that Cabinet orders would be to follow the Geneva convention,
    which would release both governments from being 'war criminals',
    and the charge landing squarely on those in the field.

    Why double up on an inquiry when a preliminary investigation is already started.
    With the ICC investigating, all the partisanship could be taken out of the issue.
    Buyers has already asked the ICC to call in the dogs on Canada:

    ''10 September 2009

    The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court says he is collecting information about possible war crimes committed in Afghanistan by both Taliban and NATO forces…
    The Netherlands-based ICC is the world's only permanent tribunal for judging suspects of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
    Every country can try its own citizens for the alleged crimes, and the ICC can only step in if the country is unable or unwilling to prosecute the case''

    • well obviously if the motion says from 2001 – 2009 then yes of course it will include the Chretien/Martin years. Did you even read the story??

    • So are we unable or unwilling – or both?

  5. Lets remember both Rae and Iffy are new to the party and hardly have any history with this whole issue. They may regret what they ask for because the fact is it was the Liberal agreement that was deficient ensuring that detainees were not supposedly tortured. Once again the Liberals are trying to capitalize on another faux scandal but it is going to come back to bite them big time. The media in their lust to get Harper are ignoring the Liberal culpability here. Shame on the lame street media in Canada.

  6. …“a Public Inquiry into the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to 2009.” ….???!!!!

    Ooooops … there goes another $40 Million public inquiry….

    But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes … He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes….

Sign in to comment.