The American ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, has reacted to the news that an "internal Foreign Affairs document" included his country on a list of those suspected of torturing detainees. Mr. Wilkins is less than impressed.
When asked about the list, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins was indignant. "We ought to be removed ... I just think it's absurd ... and quite offensive."
Personally I think the prison at Guantanamo Bay is quite offensive. I think what happened to Iraqis at the hands of American military officers at Abu Ghraib was quite offensive. I think establishing a series of secret prisons so you could question detainees without having to put up with visits from those silly Red Cross people was quite offensive. As for why our diplomatic service might feel the need to prepare a document like this, I think what happened to Maher Arar was quite offensive and I think the fact that a 15 year old boy was detained and has been held without due process for 5 years is quite offensive.
But I've cleared off the couch in the corner in case you feel faint. And if you'd like to go back home once you've recovered from this nasty shock, I understand perfectly. Have a safe trip.
That list was prepared in answer to recommendations of the O'Connor Commission, as part of the training felt necessary for our diplomats, so Wilkins can just curb his tongue.
As I've watched and listened to them, a majority of the members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and several House subcommittees clearly believe that the U.S. engages in torture. Michael Mukasey came close to being rejected by the Senate as attorney general because his refusal to admit that waterboarding is torture so angered so many senators. And how many judges and committee chairs are now on the trail of those destroyed CIA tapes, which are generally admitted, even by the CIA, to contain evidence of torture?
Wilkins is a windbag.
Well, I have to say that while Wilkins is clearly wrong, him getting all huffy about this doesn't offend me the way some US ambassadorial pronouncements do. I mean, what's he *supposed* to say? I'm sure the ambassador from Colombia doesn't go around saying "Yeah, my president orders union leaders and annoying peasant-rights-ists killed. You wanna make something of it?"
I'm sure the ambassador from Boilspeoplealive-istan doesn't admit his country tortures people, either. Not admitting their country tortures people is what diplomats from countries that torture people are *supposed* to do. It's their job. How should Wilkins be any different?
Now, it's the job of politicians and particularly governments from countries that purport to be self- and rights-respecting democracies to ignore such protestations and call a torture a torture. That would be Harper's and the Conservatives' job, at the moment. They would appear to have failed miserably, as usual.
Of course you're right, PLG. But I have a long history of snarking at American ambassadors here. It's a guilty pleasure I'm not prepared to give up.