Michael Ignatieff gave a speech in the House of Commons yesterday, which attempted to capitalize on the subsiding anger over prorogation, and the resurgent Afghan detainee affair.
The very first thing he does is accuse the Conservatives of shutting down Parliament to avoid blame for “credible” reports of torture in Afghan jails, saying Mr.Harper “did nothing.” As wont as many are to let such broad allegations slide, the truth is far from this fiction.
Before 2005, the Liberal government had decreed the protocol for Afghan detainees suspected of ties to al-Qaeda or the Taliban was to hand them directly to the U.S. military. Convinced they would receive humane treatment, this practice continued for three years, until abuse allegations at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced.
Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul at the time repeatedly warned the former Chretien and Martin governments in 2003, 2004, and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. Despite these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December of 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, according to official documents by Foreign Affairs.
The original agreement and followup to Afghan detainees was determined flawed by the incoming Conservative government, and in May of 2007 the Harper government overhauled its prisoner-transfer agreement with the Afghan government, negotiating a new one that allowed for follow-up visits to ensure detainees weren’t abused.
As it stands, there are still no “credible” reports of torture as claimed by Michael Ignatieff, other than testimony provided by a low-level diplomat. Now, while Mr.Ignatieff calls for a full, independent public inquiry into the issue with a mandate to examine the entirety of the mission, his continued characterization of unproven allegations as being true, is proof positive of his “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. This seems at odds with his public position on Omar Khadr, who also faces very serious charges and allegations.
Then later in his speech, he makes another disturbing reference to Afghanistan:
“The Conservatives are cutting four-and-a-half billion dollars in planned foreign aid, right when our focus in Afghanistan is shifting from military to humanitarian engagement.”
Well, you have to cut somewhere, don’t you. At a time when the government is running $50 billion deficits, does it really make any sense to continue sending foreign aid to other countries? And since when have we changed our focus from a “military to humanitarian” engagement? Are we not making a humanitarian difference in Afghanistan? His words here are very revealing, not only of his changing views on combating terrorism, but his acceptance of the fallacious notion of Canada as a bunch of peacekeepers.
In that respect, then, I’m surprised he didn’t praise Mr.Harper for reneging on earlier promised spending increases for the Department of National Defence.
I’m looking for something like the following to happen.
Harper fights off the release of the documents as long as he can to protect national security, but is eventually forced to do so by the judiciary or public opinion.
The evidence released shows exactly what you have stated in your post, that the Liberals were aware of and complicit in turning over detainees for torture and the Conservatives put this to a stop as soon as they had any authority to do so.
With the Liberals running for cover and making excuses (with the MSM covering their collective backsides for them) an election is called.
The Master Chessplayer wins again against the gamers that thought Checkers was the game.
We’ll see.
Then again, it could show everything the Liberals have been saying is true and it still wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans on what the Taliban have done. That’s where I find the real moral “disconnect”. That we will literally lose our minds over the idea that Omar Khadr lost some beauty sleep, but inviting the Taliban to a power-sharing agreement in a country we’ve spent billions helping to repel them, is the most ridiculous case of cognitive dissonance going.
“That’s where I find the real moral “disconnect”. ”
What moral disconnect would that be? The one where the neo-cons say “The Taliban is worse, so it’s okay for us to toss our principles in the trash”, or would it be the one where “The Liberals did it too! So it’s okay.”
Just wondering…
I’m with Wayne.
I hope they are just holding out for a fair investigation opposed the cynical effort we experienced in the last version of a Liberal lead sennate committee
I’m not happy with the cuts in the future possible money for defence. We still need new equipment, especially planes. The military are playing catch-up after decades of neglect.
Who is going to take the responsibility for any damage these documents do to the security of our soldiers on the ground or our National Security??
“Who is going to take the responsibility for any damage these documents do to the security of our soldiers on the ground or our National Security??”
The neo-con foot soldiers still don’t get it…
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that a lot of voters are like me; they’re waiting for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals to give voters a reason to vote for the Liberals. I’m generally a small-c conservative and not a member of any political party, which in theory makes my vote available to both a Conservative or Liberal candidate.
I’d like to be given some reasons to vote FOR the Liberals to match my reasons to vote Conservative.
So far it doesn’t look like the Liberals are trying to give me that. They’re trying to give me a reason to NOT vote for the Conservatives, but that’s not the same thing. I don’t think it’s a good plan either.
I have to be extremely unhappy to simply vote against a party and vote for the other one by default, but if a party gives me a reason to vote FOR them, it doesn’t take as much to change my vote. Mr. Ignatieff is not going to get my vote by these tactics. The governments treatment of the Afghan prisoner issue isn’t perfect, but there’s no reason to think that it would be much better or worse under the Liberals as it wasn’t any different under Chretien & Martin.
So what are the Liberals FOR? Cuts to spending or tax increases for the deficit? New programs like childcare, or reductions to less important programs? “We’re against whatever the Conservatives do” isn’t getting my vote.
Here’s where it gets ugly.
See the comments.
http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/torture-claiming-professor-owed-iffy-huge-debt/