Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghan Affair More Than 'Nitpicking'
The irritation of members of the Harper government has been palpable in recent weeks as they tap their toes impatiently, wondering when they can return to the serious business of waging war without all these rude interruptions about torture.
Last Friday on CBC Radio's The Current, Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, complained about all the "nitpicking" and insisted that the Afghan detainee issue is not one that concerns Canadians.
This dismissive attitude – which permeates the Harper government – is puzzling.
At stake is whether Ottawa knowingly allowed prisoners to be transferred to situations where they would likely be tortured.
If true, this could amount to a war crime. Given the gravity of what's involved, how can any attempt to ferret out the truth be derided as mere "nitpicking?"
Recent U.S. history shows the danger of a too-casual approach to torture.
Former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney had admitted he approved "waterboarding" on at least three detainees, and the "enhanced interrogation" of 33 others. George W. Bush also acknowledged authorizing these practices, explaining that "we had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."
The American Civil Liberties Union pronounced these admissions tantamount to confessions of war crimes.
Yet Cheney and Bush wander about freely; Cheney even still fancies himself a useful contributor to public debate.
This has some serious implications. This month, for the first time since Pew Research began polling on this question five years ago, a majority of Americans – 54 per cent – said torture could be justified against terrorist suspects, either sometimes or often.
This growing tolerance of torture may have something to do with the way the Obama administration – in its keenness to curry elusive Republican support – has declined to go after Bush and Cheney, even though the Convention Against Torture, signed by the U.S. in 1988, requires the prosecution or extradition of torturers.
Vowing to "look forward," the Obama administration has inadvertently sent a message to Americans that torture isn't really such a heinous crime.
If it was, surely the United States would go after its perpetrators – just like U.S. authorities (appropriately) are going after filmmaker Roman Polanski for a brutal rape he committed three decades ago. Truly serious crimes aren't forgotten or papered over in the interests of all getting along. They require punishment, partly to send a message that society condemns them.
Despite condemnation of torture in his Nobel Peace Prize speech last week, an accommodating Barack Obama has signalled his willingness to turn a blind eye to torture authorized by the White House, thereby bestowing on disgraced Republican practices the mantle of bipartisanship.
For that matter, much of Obama's Nobel speech was disturbingly Bushian. His defence of decades of U.S. military interventions was certainly more elegant and artful than anything that ever came out of Bush's mouth. But putting lipstick on a pig doesn't give her inner beauty.
The bipartisan consensus in the U.S. has effectively silenced public debate about torture.
To their credit, Canadian opposition parties have refused to be silent about torture – surely one of the clearest markers dividing the civilized world from the barbaric.
With admirable tenacity, opposition parliamentarians have sent a message that no amount of lipstick will pretty up this pig.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllAnd all of this non-stop violence and humiliation of the other "because 9-11."
Can we now say that we understand what created the Nazis?
The Harper neocon government has ignored the will of Parliament, lied on the floor of the house and under oath.Shut down the Military Police Complaints Commission(MPCC) inquiry, tried to discredit any who spoke out. They have censored every single document(This is particularly odious considering that the MPCC had the required security clearances) And of course questioned the patriotism of any who question them
To our American friends this must sound eerily familiar
The Mad Loon
It does, doesn't it?
And apparently only the names have changed here.
Just goes to show the Christo-Nazi party (neocons wherever they are) is in full swing. They've just realized you have to call everyone ELSE nazis, have to wave the flag of Democracy hard and often, and invoke God and country whenever possible.
McQuaig sez: "Recent U.S. history shows the danger of a too-casual approach to torture."
***
Wha - ?
Recent U.S. history actually shows that country may torture with impunity, while the press and public snooze.
Harper's cons are just miffed that a few Canadians remain who still seek accountability.
Just more detail as to what set this whole thing off and has Harpers Conservatives reeling.
In testimony to a Parliamentary Committee Canadian Generals and the Government claimed that there was no evidence of any Afghani being tortured after being turned over to Afghan authorities.
Several Human rights groups have investigated Canadian treatment of prisoners and have found no evidence whatsoever that any tortured while in Canadian Custody. Indeed Afghanis who had been in Canadian Custody all claimed they were well treated while in Canadian Custody and it was not until they turned over to the Afghanis that the tortures occurred.
An Afghani had been seized by Canadian forces, photographed and turned over to the Afghanis. Canadian troops later checked up on him and found he had been severely beaten so they removed him from Afghani Custody and FILED a report with the authorities.
The Generals who testified there not a single incident of such occurring now claim they never saw such a report. Peter McKay is also stating the same thing.
Meanwhile a majority of retired Canadian Diplomats have written the Government announcing that the Diplomatic corps is opposed to the attack of Stephen Harper on one of their own claiming that such questions of his loyalty and integrity will seriously harm the ability to Diplomats to act in what they see as the best interests of Canada.
The revelation that there was indeed records of tortures committed against Afghanis (As the Canadian Diplomat had claimed) after the Canadians turned them over to Afghani custody has the opposition pressing for the revealing of more records claiming there a cover up and that other such incidents might well have occurred.
They request Parliamentary privilege to inspect these documents. Harper is claiming National Security at stake and refusing access.
Harper and his group of lackeys use the same tactics that Bush perfected. First they question the patriotism of those who would dare question the Canadian Government claiming that this gives support to "terrorists". They then suggest that those same people are slurring the men and women in uniform.
They then resort to stonewalling on further investigation by claiming issues of "National Security".
The Canadian Generals involved are in a quandry. Unlike at Abu Ghraib they can not pass responsibility DOWN the line to the lower ranks.
My hats are off to the NDP and Bloc Quebecois especially for keeping up this pressure.
The people of Quebec have a long history of not wishing to see Canada involved in these wars overseas. In WW1 there were conscription riots in that Province when the draft introduced as they saw the war in Europe as strictly a European affair.
As I grow older I realize more and more that they have the right perspective on such.
Nor rouge on the Elephant, rogue in the realm.
As far as I am concerned, Harper and MacKay arn't real Canadians.
They are just wannabe Americans.
John Raulston Saul made an interesting observation.
He claimed that leaders of Canada , more often then not, do not think they have "Made it" until they are recognized in Washington. They are more interested in what Washington wants and the approval of US Presidents then they are in what Canadians want.
Harper fits this bill perfectly.
Don't they remind you of Chaney and Bush, evil hearted Harper and stumbling moron / executioner MacKay.
This is "real democracy" in action: 25% of eligible votes entitles these 2 to have full control of Government?!
Only because of the craven and cowardly opposition and the media trumpeting of the cons talking points
Somewhat off topic but is anyone else being denied internet access to the web page with the "Obama planning to drone Major Pakistan City" ( Quetta) article from yesterday?
If not then it is just my local fusion spy center blocking it.
The Obama administration's "keenness to curry elusive Republican support" since inaugeration day will probably go down as one of the most inexcusably stupid decisions in the history of America's two-party political system.
It is of course fashionable in some partisan circles to contend that Barack Obama was a closet Republican all along - a hawk on issues of waging war, and a syncophant puppet of Wall Street and big corporate interests when it comes to economic policy and health care reform. Personally, I think chasing after the subjective motivation is pretty much irrelevant, a red herring if there ever was one. The reality is that the Obama inner circle braintrust made a conscious decision, very early on, to simply marginalize the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and instead bet the whole ranch on cozying up to the blue dog Dems and the so-called GOP moderates.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
The decision not to prosecute war crimes, or torture, or warrantless domestic wiretapping, or the massive financial frauds perpetrated during the Bush/Cheney years is simply part and parcel of that initial, basically tragic, calculated partisan choice. They (meaning the centrist, DLC type Dems enmeshed in the world of Washington DC partisan give and take) would rather bargain and compromise with those (like Joe Lieberman) who openly opposed them in the 2008 election, than nurture, expand and listen to the grassroots base who actually put the keys to the Oval Office into their hands.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
The Democrats keep giving it away. And the neocon Republicans will be more than glad to take it back.
Bill from Saginaw
I see it differently. The corporate/fascist powers that be saw that Dumbya had discredited the GOP brand for the near future, so ran their candidate under their other brand, the Democrats.
Sort of like "That Pontiac Firebird you bought was a lemon? Then how about buying this totally different Chevrolet Camaro?"
Sioux Rose
MUJERIEGO: I totally agree. Sometimes I think these whores to power cast lots that predetermine which "team" they will run on. In the final analysis, they all serve the monied interests with FEW rare exceptions. With that being the case (as Nader wisely related more than a decade ago), what difference is the D or the R, anyway? To those brainwashed by sports, it's enough of a difference to make ALL the difference; and this explains, along with the Bernay's power of "branding" (or use of brand names) why lots of democrats countenance Obama's moves when they have departed less than an iota from those of his disgusting, immoral predecessor. Smoke and mirrors never had it so good!
Sioux Rose
BILL: Sometimes I think you're blinded by your own decency. We all make use of projection in much of our perception. Because you're an ethical sort, you project these qualities onto the Obama team. All the passes you give him may not be relevant to political strategy in the least. Pragmatism has a way of putting financial concerns first, and guess what portion of the U.S. citizenry benefits most from that stance? I think Obama is bought by that 1% that now controls the nation's wealth. ALL of his decisions have conformed not only to blue dog democrats, conservative "democrats, or republicans... his prioritites have consistently put big business/the profit motive (for a few) first. It was clear with the bailout of the banks, clear with the backroom deals done with insurance companies under the banner of health care reform, clear in terms of beefing up the military when the nation is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and clear when it comes to not rocking the boat by having any previous members of "the club" placed in the vulnerable position of having to ACCOUNT for their actions, especially those that trespassed upon law, The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Habeas Corpus. He is a YES man dancing with those that brought him. (Molly just nodded on that one.)
Vowing to "look forward," the Obama administration has inadvertently sent a message to Americans that torture isn't really such a heinous crime.
Whenever I hear the term "way forward" "look forward" etc. from the Obama folks I know something is rotten
What still amazes me are the number of people who ingore the facts and blame all this on the bad ol neocons and Republicans.
Can someone please explain how Obama foreign policy and D Congress (spending more for wars and occupations than Bush Jr.) is different than "neocon" foreign policy?
This is not a rhetorical question, but a serious one.
isn't there a rope in the gallows outside the old nuremberg court with dick cheney's name on it? it's absolutely amazing that he could knowingly start a war on false pretenses and then order the torture of suspects and still be immune from anything except getting the attention of every major media outlet every time he wants to trash the president.
Is Cheney still calling the shots from behind the scenes? That would explain Obama's actions- maybe Cheney is a ventriloquist
I repeat; in o's case we are dealing with psycho-pathology. He had to deny and split off from so many different parts of himself, he has no natural integrity,--he is no longer integrated in any healthy way... all to be able to make it in the white overclass world. He has become mad. There is no one home..
Vowing to "look forward," the Obama administration has inadvertently sent a message to Americans that torture isn't really such a heinous crime.
FUBARack H. Obama does not "look forward". He does not look at all. He, like the nation that he governs, is in free fall with his eyes closed. And after every ten feet of descent he says to himself, "So far, so good." Then he gives himself and his presidency "a solid B+" for his first year.
BTW: Obama's message is not inadvertent. It's deliberate.
The U.S. has been completely co-opted by the corporations but until recently, I thought Canada had remained more of a democracy.
But since Col. Ann Wright and Amy Goodman were harrassed at the border for their progressive political views, I'm realizing that Canada is also under the control of the corporations.
Since the corporations control the media (and even our internet access - which may become a problem) the mindless drones who absorb their messages (buy, buy, buy, fear, fear, fear) will continue to hand the government over to the corporations.
They tolerate us because they have no fear, once that changes kiss forums such as CD goodbye
The self-absorbed majority is locked in darkness by an illusion that they deserve more, which gives them a guilt-free conscience as they take all they can take.
All by intelligent design, as the purpose of this world is to take prove the harm in it.