This from today's Globe and Mail:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials and even cabinet ministers, directing them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office, according to an internal e-mail and government sources.
The orders, described in an e-mail to bureaucrats, indicate that ministers have been told to avoid talking about the direction of the government, and that the government wants them to be less accessible to the news media. And all government officials are instructed to avoid speaking about anything other than the five priorities outlined in the Conservative campaign.
...those five points being " Federal Accountability Act, a GST cut, a child-care allowance, tougher criminal sentences, and a patient waiting-times guarantee." I guess the PM wants to be the only person to talk about Afghanistan:
Before its liberation, under the Taliban regime, Afghanistan often served as an incubator for Al Qaeda and other terror organizations.
This reality hit home with brutal force on 9-11, when two dozen Canadians lost their lives suddenly and senselessly in the destruction of the World Trade Centre.
Those were ordinary Canadians. People with families, partners, children and dreams for a better future. Just like all of our citizens, people who died suddenly and for no reason at the hands of fanatics.
Since that time, Al Qaeda has singled out Canada as one of the countries targeted for terror.
And beyond the threat of terror there’s the threat of drugs.
...yike...Baby Bush alert!
NOTE: There is an informative thread at rabble.ca about our troops in Afghanistan, our relationship with USA in this matter, and international law.
A friend of mine recently posed the question: are Canadian soldiers handing Afghani prisoners over to US military? And if yes, is the US military adhering to the Geneva Convention? And if no, or even maybe not, then how can we demand for the protections of Geneva for our soldiers? To my mind, this gets to the heart of the phrase "support our troops." I am looking for discussion of this question on blogs or in the media. Any links would be appreciated.
The Guantanamo Bay detains people detained in the war on terrorism. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war on terrorism. There is no nation state that has signed the Geneva Conventions with which we're fighting. We're fighting a non-state organization with a collection of people from all kinds of countries, and these people violate the laws of war at the very core and use it to kill lots of civilians, as we saw on Sept. 11.
John Yoo, UC Berkeley, and former deputy assistant attorney general
Translation: If other people violate the laws of war, then it's a free for all! Nine eleven, motherfuckers!!!!
From antiwar.com, on mistakes in the Moussaoui trial that may result in him not getting the death penalty as the "20th hijacker":
Don't worry, thanks to the wonderful power of the Commander in Chief to "determine" in a "finding" that someone is an enemy combatant outside the protection of the law, Moussaoui can still be kidnapped by the military and executed in a secret ghost prison in the former Soviet Union.
Thanks for that rabble link. It's a lively, intelligent discussion. On studio 2, this past Thursday, the Ottawa panel was discussing this subject in regards to PR and politics. If you go here you can listen to the podcast for the March 16 episode, "Harper in Afghanistan."
Lets not forget that it wasn't Harper who sent our troops there, it was Jean Chrétien and the real politic of the situation was that the diplomatic heat was on to make some sort of show of support for the USA (in a way that the Canadian public found palatable).
In reality, we have been participating in several different missions in Afghanistan, we initially sent a couple of battleships to the Arabian sea in October of 2001 in support of the US and Britain in Operation Apollo, Then we had a battle group there operating within the USA's Operation Enduring Freedom. Then we switched to Operation Athena, the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force on what was to be another one of our feel-good nation-building exercises. (schools, hospitals, dodging friendly fire from the Americans ...we wised up to that little problem after enduring freedom). (And it was also about security and recognisance around Kabul in order to facilitate the Afghan elections.)
This fits our national fantasy about the Canadian armed forces, we like to think that our troops are mending the roof on some orphanage in Kabul. (please note that these gestures also gave us the excuse that our small military capabilities were tied up in Afghanistan so we really couldn't spare anyone for Iraq) (not even a Canadian flag, just done run out of them, sorry, must print some more up soon). (additionally, please note that by writing this post, I avoid wading into the other thread on the simpleposie essay about quantal strife, deflecting you from any awareness of my poor art writing skills by summarizing Canadian troop deployments)
Back on topic, the mission changed once again and in a more noticeable way, we are now leading all the coalition forces in Kandahar where the Taliban are. We're no longer in Kabul with the kites, the music and the affectionate orphans. It seems that Paul Martin's falling government, with agreement from the opposition and very little noise from our media agreed to this new task, basically a take over from the US. What Martin weaseled us into, is what Harper is now revelling in, or rolling in. I think it's political opportunism on his part. There are coherent arguments for and against our presence in Afghanistan, (the debate on the rabble link does discuss the morality and legality of the issue) but he has screwed up big time by citing that borrowed phrase 'fight them there or else we'll have to fight them at home', even Republicans in the US are questioning that tired line. And his greater error is his current refusal to allow a debate in parliament, which goes back to Sally's original point about the Harper style of control-freak governance.
In answer to the question: "Are Canadian soldiers handing Afghani prisoners over to US military?" The answer is
youbetcha!
"Canadian troops hold detainees only long enough to process them and obtain any valuable intelligence before turning them over to the appropriate authorities, said Ward, who commanded Canadian troop as a colonel in Kosovo six years ago.
He explained that detainees are handed over to allies once transfer conditions are accepted and the International Committee of the Red Cross is informed.
The United States is the detainee authority in the coalition, he said, adding that Washington has agreed to Canada's conditions, including requirements of humane treatment and third-party monitoring." (ya sure)
Running parallel to all these different troop deployments that varied in size and expertise is the little known participation of Joint Task Force Two in support and cooperation with the American Special Forces. (it's heart warming when the elite forces of these two nations get together once a week to eat bugs)
(they do!!!!!!!!!!!)
Dear L.M., thank you so much for your insight and info. But we all know you are just posting to this thread cause it gives you another chance to use Google Earth. VB says: by the way, did you see the CSIS recruiting poster in Arabic in the Globe and Mail today?
Google Earth!, there's a million good reasons to use it.
Tell VB that I'll wear my turquoise burqa to the job interview. (I'm hoping that will distract them from my lack of language skills, since Babel Fish doesn't translate Dari or Pashto) (I wonder if an encyclopaedic knowledge of Hansard debates is an advantage)
Here's a link from Eric Margolis talking about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. He used to be a panellist on TVO's Diplomatic Immunity. (and he had a barking style of delivery ...don't you go barking at the wonderful Janice Stein, buddy!) Alpha-male-know-it-all stuff aside, he was totally against our participation in that region from the start. He had spent a lot of time in that country, obviously felt strong ties with the people there, and I remember being touched by his emotional stake in the issue. His analysis of the situation is probably the clearest argument against our participation that I've read.
|
This from today's Globe and Mail: ...those five points being " Federal Accountability Act, a GST cut, a child-care allowance, tougher criminal sentences, and a patient waiting-times guarantee." I guess the PM wants to be the only person to talk about Afghanistan: ...yike...Baby Bush alert!
NOTE: There is an informative thread at rabble.ca about our troops in Afghanistan, our relationship with USA in this matter, and international law.
A friend of mine recently posed the question: are Canadian soldiers handing Afghani prisoners over to US military? And if yes, is the US military adhering to the Geneva Convention? And if no, or even maybe not, then how can we demand for the protections of Geneva for our soldiers? To my mind, this gets to the heart of the phrase "support our troops." I am looking for discussion of this question on blogs or in the media. Any links would be appreciated.
- sally mckay 3-17-2006 3:05 pm
Translation: If other people violate the laws of war, then it's a free for all! Nine eleven, motherfuckers!!!!
- mark 3-17-2006 9:29 pm
From antiwar.com, on mistakes in the Moussaoui trial that may result in him not getting the death penalty as the "20th hijacker":
- tom moody 3-17-2006 10:36 pm
Thanks for that rabble link. It's a lively, intelligent discussion. On studio 2, this past Thursday, the Ottawa panel was discussing this subject in regards to PR and politics. If you go here you can listen to the podcast for the March 16 episode, "Harper in Afghanistan."
Lets not forget that it wasn't Harper who sent our troops there, it was Jean Chrétien and the real politic of the situation was that the diplomatic heat was on to make some sort of show of support for the USA (in a way that the Canadian public found palatable).
In reality, we have been participating in several different missions in Afghanistan, we initially sent a couple of battleships to the Arabian sea in October of 2001 in support of the US and Britain in Operation Apollo, Then we had a battle group there operating within the USA's Operation Enduring Freedom. Then we switched to Operation Athena, the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force on what was to be another one of our feel-good nation-building exercises. (schools, hospitals, dodging friendly fire from the Americans ...we wised up to that little problem after enduring freedom). (And it was also about security and recognisance around Kabul in order to facilitate the Afghan elections.)
This fits our national fantasy about the Canadian armed forces, we like to think that our troops are mending the roof on some orphanage in Kabul. (please note that these gestures also gave us the excuse that our small military capabilities were tied up in Afghanistan so we really couldn't spare anyone for Iraq) (not even a Canadian flag, just done run out of them, sorry, must print some more up soon). (additionally, please note that by writing this post, I avoid wading into the other thread on the simpleposie essay about quantal strife, deflecting you from any awareness of my poor art writing skills by summarizing Canadian troop deployments)
Back on topic, the mission changed once again and in a more noticeable way, we are now leading all the coalition forces in Kandahar where the Taliban are. We're no longer in Kabul with the kites, the music and the affectionate orphans. It seems that Paul Martin's falling government, with agreement from the opposition and very little noise from our media agreed to this new task, basically a take over from the US. What Martin weaseled us into, is what Harper is now revelling in, or rolling in. I think it's political opportunism on his part. There are coherent arguments for and against our presence in Afghanistan, (the debate on the rabble link does discuss the morality and legality of the issue) but he has screwed up big time by citing that borrowed phrase 'fight them there or else we'll have to fight them at home', even Republicans in the US are questioning that tired line. And his greater error is his current refusal to allow a debate in parliament, which goes back to Sally's original point about the Harper style of control-freak governance.
- L.M. 3-18-2006 9:54 am
In answer to the question: "Are Canadian soldiers handing Afghani prisoners over to US military?" The answer is youbetcha!
"Canadian troops hold detainees only long enough to process them and obtain any valuable intelligence before turning them over to the appropriate authorities, said Ward, who commanded Canadian troop as a colonel in Kosovo six years ago.
He explained that detainees are handed over to allies once transfer conditions are accepted and the International Committee of the Red Cross is informed.
The United States is the detainee authority in the coalition, he said, adding that Washington has agreed to Canada's conditions, including requirements of humane treatment and third-party monitoring." (ya sure)
Running parallel to all these different troop deployments that varied in size and expertise is the little known participation of Joint Task Force Two in support and cooperation with the American Special Forces. (it's heart warming when the elite forces of these two nations get together once a week to eat bugs)
(they do!!!!!!!!!!!)
- L.M. 3-18-2006 10:20 am
Dear L.M., thank you so much for your insight and info. But we all know you are just posting to this thread cause it gives you another chance to use Google Earth. VB says: by the way, did you see the CSIS recruiting poster in Arabic in the Globe and Mail today?
- sally mckay 3-19-2006 3:20 am
Google Earth!, there's a million good reasons to use it.
Tell VB that I'll wear my turquoise burqa to the job interview. (I'm hoping that will distract them from my lack of language skills, since Babel Fish doesn't translate Dari or Pashto) (I wonder if an encyclopaedic knowledge of Hansard debates is an advantage)
- L.M. 3-19-2006 3:49 am
Here's a link from Eric Margolis talking about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. He used to be a panellist on TVO's Diplomatic Immunity. (and he had a barking style of delivery ...don't you go barking at the wonderful Janice Stein, buddy!) Alpha-male-know-it-all stuff aside, he was totally against our participation in that region from the start. He had spent a lot of time in that country, obviously felt strong ties with the people there, and I remember being touched by his emotional stake in the issue. His analysis of the situation is probably the clearest argument against our participation that I've read.
- L.M. 3-19-2006 10:22 pm