Just a short note to say that this is a really, really stupid time for this. I'm sure the Conservatives would love to see this whole issue of torture turn into a partisan free-for-all that the general public will then tune out as being simply more of the same nonsense that they've come to expect from the overgrown children in Ottawa. You're now helping them and making it appear as though the NDP is only too happy to use human rights as a partisan issue.
The governing party has long since made it clear that they'll use every trick at their disposal to thwart any kind of serious investigation into the handling of detainees in Afghanistan. The opposition parties need to work together, stay focused and concentrate on the business at hand. That doesn't mean you have to stand and applaud every time Iggy comes in the room. God knows I wouldn't. But put the sniping on hold when it actually has nothing to do with the issue you're supposed to be examining.
Stop screwing around.
Love,
pogge
That being said, it would be wise to beware of Iggy and his minions of Liberals. I heard the The Gifford Lectures on the CBC Ideas series and he definitely did support using torture.
Now he says it is not so.
Okay, maybe Jack should not push it - but putting trust in this man can lead to standing alone, naked and embarrassed in some public venue when Iggy does the Alfred Prufrock thing:
“That is not what I meant at all.
That is not it, at all.”
putting trust in this man can lead to standing alone
I'm not saying he should be trusted. But the Conservatives will try and use Iggy as a way to deflect from the real story and as a wedge if they can. The NDP doesn't need to help with that.
Come on Pogge, these are the same geniuses who let a third of the caucus vote to gut gun control. They are on a different planet altogether.
So ... let me get this straight ... you want the New Democrats to go after Harper (who seems to have no problem with torture) but hands off Ignatieff (who seems to have no problem with torture .. with conditions).
Yeah .. attack Jack Layton ... sheeeeesh!
Ignatieff isn't the one in power Leftdog.. nor is he part of the government that's accused of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil as it comes to torture reports from its diplomats.
This is a purely political naked partisan move on the NDP's part designed to try and give it a couple extra polling points at the expense of the Liberal left flank. In the process, you and your party risk doing what Pogge suggests and letting Harper and company off the hook.
Scott said ... "This is a purely political naked partisan move on the NDP's part designed to try and give it a couple extra polling points at the expense of the Liberal left flank"
You seem to be the one who has turned this into 'a purely naked partisan move" to cover your Liberal ass!
And by the way ... what' was your government's record on turning over detainees (for possible torture) before Harper got the government benches. Your hypocrisy is so bizarre.
attack Jack Layton ... sheeeeesh!
When Layton decides he'd rather be a useful idiot for the Conservatives than do what happens to be both the right thing and the smart thing in the long term, yeah I'll attack Jack Layton.
It remains to be seen if this was only done in Afghanistan when the Conservatives took power or if it was carried over by the Liberals. That being said I know there is one party which was never for this the NDP and I think they get to shout that loud and clear from roof tops. I would cation Liberal bloggers to wait and see what happens or they may very well have egg on their face no because of Iggy but because of Martin. Remember we were there before the Cons took over.
pogge .. unlike Conservatives (and sometimes Liberals), New Democrats have nothing but contempt for torture, those who torture and those who would use torture. Where do you stand?????
Where do you stand?????
Go fuck yourself. You asked for that.
You did that to yourself!
All of which reminds me yet again why I don't belong to a political party. It's interesting how partisan blindness like that can still take me by surprise, though.
If I ever remember not to drink some spare forty bucks, I'll rejoin the NDP.
That said, I think you've got a good point there pogge. I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% but i'm not sure that I 100% agree with Layton trying to position the NDP as the party with the least baggage on this defining issue.
So I would have kept my mouth shut about Ignatieff and kept the focus on harper if i were Layton.
I'm not convinced that dragging Iggy into the line of fire on this issue significantly reduces the heat on Harper et al. If it doesn't then Jack et al are right, if it does Pogge is right. Also, if the issue isn't electorally significant (and while I'm a hard core democrat, I don't have a lot of faith in the electorate to process issues that far from their self interest) then there would be no downside to doing it even if it covers for Harper.
As far as longer term strategy is concerned it is to be noted that there are no social democratic governments elected under FPTP in the presence of viable parties who are perceived as centrist. The Liberals are so perceived. Long term the NDP needs to crush the Liberals before really taking on the Cons.
Meh. I'm of two minds. It may be questionable on a tactical level. But I'm not sure what you mean, Pogge, about doing differently being the "right" thing.
It seems pretty clear that the Liberals as a government have not in the past and would not in the future have any particular problems with torture as long as it's not happening somewhere it can readily be blamed on them. I don't see any ethical reason to avoid pointing this out. If it were me, my instinct would be to talk about the record of Lib governments past (including ones in which Iggy was a minister) rather than the malleable words of an oh-so-flexible Liberal leader. But in general, I don't see why the topic should be off limits, or why it's particularly important to let the Libs wrap themselves in the flag on this issue when in fact it's yet another case of Liberal, Tory, same old story.
The Liberals love whenever it's convenient to them to pretend that they're just like the NDP in whatever way, to make it easier for the people they want to persuade to vote "strategically" to hold their noses. So in this case they're not like the mean old Cons, they're kind and gentle and believe in civil liberties. Well, they aren't and they don't and when it's convenient to them they'll be saying how tough they are, unlike those soft-on-terror Dippers. And the media on average has no difficulty projecting such contradictory messages. Is it really such a terrible idea to try to frame things to make it a bit more difficult for them to have it both ways?
Sure, I guess that's partisan thinking. And there may be tactical considerations, especially if anyone thinks there's a ghost of a chance that any of this will lead to better treatment for any Afghan prisoners. Although even there, if the Liberals are allowed to acquire a good-guy, above-reproach aura on this stuff that just reduces the chances that they will ever find it necessary to actually *do* any good-guy things. Look at Obama.
The stupid things that Iggy has said about torture -- and he has said some unquestionably stupid things (he thinks that sleep deprivation and stress positions aren't all that bad, eg, or he did, whereas medical experts will tell you that they destroy minds and bodies and can kill) -- are pretty far off-topic when we're investigating the transfer of Afghan detainees, which is a different set of problems (or at least so far as we know it is).
It's just not good enough for critics here to wave words like "torture" and "complicity" around as blunt instruments to be applied to all cases and all opponents. It's not a good enough way to analyse what the Conservatives have done on the detainee file, and it's a distraction as Layton has put his attack on Iggy.
We do have serious complicity cases here, in the behaviour of CSIS, DFAIT, and successive (probably) governments who've authorized their unconscionable and possibly criminal behaviour.
As far as I know, no one has yet accused any Canadian of co-operating in the abuse of Afghan detainees, although it may yet emerge that some higher-ups were consciously winking at abuse, which nudges them towards complicity territory. But it's more important to analyse clearly right now what the behaviour we know about constitutes, and to go after Harper and his minions on charges that will stick because they're the truth.
I expect I'll have more after I've had more coffee but this jumped out at me.
If it were me, my instinct would be to talk about the record of Lib governments past (including ones in which Iggy was a minister)
Iggy entered the House of Commons in 2006. He's never been on the government side, never mind being a minister. The NDP has now signaled that they're not even going to wait and see where the evidence leads, they're going to score every partisan point on the Liberals they can even when Iggy's behaviour can't possibly have anything to do with the current issue. So even on an issue like this one it's not about truth, it's just about partisan advantage. The Conservatives have already won.
Coffee good. Brain work better.
When Colvin first testified and the Conservatives first fired back, Paul Wells characterized the Con response as the bucket defence:
Now a number of people have suggested, including in this comment thread, that the general population won't be inclined to pay much attention to this issue. I can think of no better way to guarantee that than for the opposition parties to treat it as business as usual: a partisan circus with accusations and name-calling flying in every direction. I say again: if the NDP is going to suck oxygen out of it by taking opportunities for partisan shots at a Liberal who has never served in government and can't possibly be held accountable for any actual events in this story, then they're helping the Conservatives. They're not treating this like a serious inquiry -- it's just another day on the hill and everyone will tune out.
Want people to take this seriously? Treat it like a serious matter instead of an opportunity to pick up a point or two in next week's poll. 'Cos that point or two will probably shift back in a couple weeks after the next round of squabbling if we continue to allow the Conservatives to set the tone.