Monsters

Nuremberg, mon amour.

Jim Abbott is obviously a close student of Alberto Gonzales, who famously called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Memo to Jim Abbott: Alberto Gonzales is having a hard time finding a job these days.

Further memo to all members of the Harper government who haven't heard of Article 3: Lawyer up.

The Speaker has yet to rule, my friends. Patience. I don't want to get my hopes up.

Oh,oh.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/a-precedent-for-not-tabling-documents.html

Thoughts?

Did the original motion last December demand that the documents in question be tabled in the House of Commons? Or did it ask that members of the special parliamentary committee have access to them which I don't believe is the same thing. If national security is an issue, committee hearings can be held in camera. If security clearances are an issue, then MPs can be vetted and given the proper clearances. No?

Here is the original motion:
That, given the undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada’s constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested, and given the reality that the government has violated the rights of Parliament by invoking the Canada Evidence Act to censor documents before producing them, the House urgently requires access to the following documents in their original and uncensored form:

all documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin, dated October 5, 2009;

all documents within the Department of Foreign Affairs written in response to the documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin, dated October 5, 2009;

all memoranda for information or memoranda for decision sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning detainees from December 18, 2005 to the present;

all documents produced pursuant to all orders of the Federal Court in Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada

all documents produced to the Military Police Complaints Commission in the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearings;

all annual human rights reports by the Department of Foreign Affairs on Afghanistan; and

accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

The Conservatives are saying House means tabled in the open. The opposition says it was worded that way as a formality and that if the government accepts the will of the house, they would negotiate a process for making it work. If the speaker is feeling legalistic, he could very well side with the Conservatives. It is a crap shoot.

Is this gonna be a rerun of Michaelle Jean on the first prorogation?

"Oh,oh.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/a-precedent-for-not-tabling-documents.html

Thoughts?"

You've probably seen this by now, Greg, but via
Kady :
"On the plus side, Colleague McGregor has posted the full details of that odd -- and previously unmentioned -- precedent cited by Government House Leader Tom Lukiwski in his intervention earlier today, in which he claimed that Milliken himself had agreed that the prime minister should not be required to table documents that he referred to during debate if there was concern that it could put national security at risk. It's probably worth noting that the incident in question involved a point of order, not a point of privilege, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the power of parliament to subpoena persons, papers or records."

Tah for the link, Pogge.
Paul Champ very much like Colvin in the way he gave testimony - unflappable, courteous. The ruder the insinuations against him became in Abbott and Hawn's questions, the more likely Champ was to begin his response by thanking them for their input.

So we are not 'at war' in Afghanistan?
The definition of war as posted on this site
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/wa/war238447.html

seems to disagree.
Also--if we are not at 'war' what benefits will the injured and disabled 'non war' fighting 'non-soldiers' receive? Will they have to fight for the rest of their lives for any benefits at all, like Matt Stopford? Words are powerful weapons in the hands of our government. What they say is not what we think the words mean.

And when will the discussion begin re all the 'collateral damage' we have caused to Afghani civilians? Or are they not worthy of consideration in a 'non-war' setting?