Tagged: Stephen Harper
Why this prorogation is different
Defenders of Harper’s three-month prorogation lean heavily on the talking point that Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau both used prorogation without provoking a fuss. Contrarian reader C. Leonhardt thinks the analogy is flawed:
Both these prime ministers had a majority in the House when they prorogued Parliament. If their decisions had been challenged, they would have won the vote in the House. Harper’s party does not hold a majority of the seats in the House. He would have lost the vote. To claim that his actions repesent past practice is false. At this point one man controls this country.
The last line overstates things, but the distinction is important. Both times Harper used prorogation to thwart the will of a Parliament whose majority opposed him and his policies.
Taking dictation from the PMO
An end of year column by the Globe’s John Ibbitson proclaims Harper’s prorogation of Parliament “a travesty… [but] devilishly clever.”
There’s an old maxim that no one ever hears what comes before the “but.” True to form, the thrust of Ibbitson’s column is to promote admiration for Harper’s cleverness, not mild regret at his abasement of transparency, accountability, and parliamentary supremacy – things the right once pretended to care about. Quote:
A senior government official, speaking on background, insisted that calculations concerning the Afghan detainees controversy played no part in the decision.
Rather, said the official, the government wanted to give itself time and breathing room to think through how to manage the economy as it emerges from recession and to put in place a long-term strategy for balancing the budget.
What conceivable reason would Ibbitson have for granting some Harper functionary anonymity from which to launch this risible proposition? The spinner contributes no novel facts or otherwise unobtainable information – merely a partisan talking point. Ibbitson doesn’t even pretend his source’s job would be at risk if his identity were revealed.
A columnist for the national newspaper should not be taking dictation from the PMO.
“Not my department,” says Harper
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s insistence that the torture of prisoners Canada hands over to Afghan authorities is a problem for Afghanistan, not Canada, calls to mind Tom Leher’s lyric about rocket scientist Wernher von Braun’s apparent indifference to the consequences of his work on Germany’s World War II V2 rocket:
Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
‘That’s not my department’, says Wernher von Braun.
In fact, as Bob Rae points out in the same Globe and Mail article, transferring prisoners with the expectation they may be tortured is a violation of the Geneva Conventions – a war crime, in other words.
The blithe indifference to torture shown by both the Harper and Martin governments is a marked departure from the international standards Canadians are accustomed to upholding. But it pales by comparison with the US approach. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald (here) and the New York Times (here) have chilling recapitulations of the US torture and subsequent seven-year imprisonment at Guantanamo, without charge, of Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj, during which he was interrogated not about terrorism but about Al Jazeera’s operations.
Says Greenwald:
The due-process-free imprisonment of this journalist by the U.S. government was ignored almost completely by the American media (other than Nicholas Kristof), even as it righteously obsessed on the far shorter imprisonment of journalists by countries such as Iran and North Korea (hey, look over there at those tyrannical countries – they imprison our journalists!!!!!). Aside from al-Hajj, we’ve imprisoned numerous other journalists without charges in Iraq — and continue to this day to do so — including ones who work for Reuters and the Associated Press.
Visual data: search completion
Start typing “Is Nova Scotia…” into a search box, and Google will offer suggestions for completing your query:
a country? an island? in Canada? a good place to live?
All four, natch. Now try “Is Stephen Harper…” and watch Google suggest:
jewish? a freemason? a christian? a good prime minister? getting the h1n1 vaccine? liberal? a conservative?
OK, none of the above.
Search engines generate these suggested query completions by keeping a digital eye on the billions of searches they process every day. Fernanda Viégas and Martin Wattenberg, artist-scientists at IMB’s Center for Social Software, have been keeping an eye on the phenomenon.
Suggestions for the word “why” result in questions about the sky, cats and marriage… along with “why do dogs eat grass,” and “why do men cheat,” and “why is pink the color for girls.” This labor-saving device — part fortuneteller, part shrink? — has opened a window into our collective soul. With millions of people pouring their hearts into this modern-day confessional, we get a direct, if mysterious, glimpse into the heads of our fellow Web surfers.
Viégas and Wattenberg, whose work is hard to summarize in a single subordinate clause, have developed software to create pictures of these collective queries, which they present in an op ed piece in today’s New York Times.
The size of the arrows and words reflect the number of web pages that answer each of the questions.
Text of ambassadors’ letter
The following is the full text of the open letter from 38 former Canadian ambassadors, protesting the Harper government’s attacks on Richard Colvin:
The issues raised by the Richard Colvin affair are profound. Colvin, a Foreign Service Officer dedicated to discharging his responsibilities to the best of his ability under difficult circumstances, was unfairly subjected to personal attacks as a result of his testimony provided in response to a summons from a parliamentary committee.
While criticism of his testimony was perfectly legitimate, aspersions cast on his personal integrity were not.
A fundamental requirement of a Foreign Service Officer is that he or she report on a given situation as observed or understood. It is only in this way that any government can draw conclusions knowledgeably and make its considered decisions, even if at variance with the reports received. The Colvin affair risks creating a climate in which Officers may be more inclined to report what they believe headquarters wants to hear, rather than facts and perceptions deemed unpalatable.
Serge April, Marc Baudouin, Michael D. Bell, Rod Bell, Eric Bergusch, Fred Bild, Marius
Bujold, Robert Collette, Jacques Crête, Brian Davis, Anne Marie Doyle, Paul Durand, James Elliott, Nick Etheridge, Marc Faguy, Robert Fowler, James George, Stan Gooch, John Graham, Nick Hare, Jean-Paul Hubert, Rick Kholer, Gabriel Lessard, Daniel Marchand, Patricia Marsden-Dole, Émile Martel, François Mathys, Carolyn McAskie, John Noble, Gar Pardy, Jacques Roy, Michael Shenstone, Joseph Stanford, Howard Strauss, William Warden, Christopher Westdal, Jack Whittleton, Ron Wilson.
Ambassadors condemn Peter MacKay’s attacks on Colvin
Twenty-three former Canadian ambassadors have condemned the Harper Government’s treatment of diplomat Richard Colvin in a letter released to The Globe and Mail. The ambassadors singled out Peter MacKay, who accused Colvin of accepting the word of “people who throw acid in the faces of schoolchildren.”
“[MacKay] savaged [Colvin] in public, and ridiculed him, and that’s not the way to treat a guy who’s doing his job,” Paul Durand, a former Canadian ambassador to the Organization of American States, to Chile and to Costa Rica, told the Globe. “He is not a whistleblower. He was hauled before a parliamentary committee and had to state the truth.
The Ambassadors wrote:
The Colvin affair risks creating a climate in which officers may be more inclined to report what they believe headquarters wants to hear, rather than facts and perceptions deemed unpalatable,
A fundamental requirement of a foreign service officer is that he or she report on a given situation as observed or understood,” the former heads of mission said. “It is only in this way that any government can draw conclusions knowledgeably and make its considered decisions, even if at variance with the reports received.
The Globe did not print the full text of the ambassadors’ letter, but if someone would like to send it to us, we will post it.
The Globe and Mail newsroom steps up
Several Globe and Mail reporters who looked looked at the leaked Colvin emails that fueled Christie Blatchford’s recent philippics against the diplomat came up with a very different picture. To begin, here’s Paul Koring:
The Harper government has blacked out large sections of relevant files handed over to the independent inquiry probing allegations of transfer to torture of detainees in Afghanistan, despite the fact that its investigators have the highest levels of national security clearance.
The heavily redacted documents… underscore the sweeping nature of the government’s efforts to keep the documentary record from the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is attempting to conduct an inquiry into allegations that Canada knowingly transferred prisoners to likely torturers in Afghanistan…
“I’m not sure ‘cover-up’ is the right word but someone is going to considerable lengths not to disclose what was known,” said Stuart Hendin, an expert in the law of war and international-rights issues…
“It’s almost impossible for any independent authority to conduct a meaningful inquiry” with documents rendered so unreadable, Mr. Hendin added. “It all suggests someone knew there were issues.”
Koring also offers a useful reminder:
Transfer to torture is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. It is also outlawed by international convention.
The whole article is must-read material.
Meanwhile, the Globe’s Campbell Clark reviews the evidence and finds three points of agreement…
- The government knew that abuses and torture took place in Afghan jails when the Canadian mission in Kandahar began in December of 2005.S
- Sometime in 2006, it became clear that detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers were not being properly tracked and monitored, meaning that Canadian officials could not know if they were being abused or tortured.
- Once Ottawa changed the transfer arrangements in May, 2007, serious allegations of torture of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers came to light. Colvin warned that the reports appeared credible; the generals and senior diplomat David Mulroney said they stopped transfers several times because of serious allegations.
…and one unanswered question:
- Why the government take so long to change the transfer arrangements?
Finally, the Globe’s Jane Taber has two blog posts (here and here) cataloging the Harper Government’s resort to jingoism in their efforts to thwart any inquiry into diplomat Richard Colvin’s testimony that senior Canadian military and foreign affairs officials ignored warnings that low-level prisoners we were turning over to Afghan security officials were likely being tortured.
Stephen Harper’s Tories wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag in Question Period today, aggressively accusing the Liberals of being anti-soldier, anti-athlete and by default, anti-Canadian.
“When will they stop attacking these men and women who are heroes,” demanded Transport Minister John Baird, dodging a question from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.
Blatchford resorts to the bucket defence
In a follow-up to her screed against diplomat Richard Colvin, Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford resorts to a full-blown bucket defence. According to Blatchford:
- There is no evidence Afghan security forces abused prisoners Canada turned over to them: “This is not akin to officials knowing that Afghans were being tortured.”
- Everyone knew Afghan security forces abused prisoners Canada turned over to them: “[It's] obvious that Afghanistan is a brutal country where cruelty, hardship and physical violence are a way of life. No one with a lick of sense would expect that Afghan prisoners would live in comfort or ease.”
- Colvin never actually complained about torture: “If Mr. Colvin had been shouting TORTURE at the top of his lungs… word would not have leaked out” and, quoting retired lieutenant-general Michel Gauthier, “There was nothing in [Colvin's] reports that caused me or my staff to see in them serious, imminent or alarming new warnings of torture … and to suggest that senior officials or commanders ignored these or covered them up is wrong.”
- Colvin’s complained about torture in a manner so shrill as to be hysterical: “Mr. Colvin… spun himself into a hyperbolic fury over it.”
- Colvin only discovered the torture problem in April, 2007, after Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith blew the lid off the issue. “Within days of [Smith's] first story… Mr. Colvin had found his issue and was off to the races” and “Mr. Colvin discovered the abuse story shortly after or as this newspaper did.”
- By early 2007, everyone in Kandahar knew about the torture problem: “In other words, by early 2007, it was clear to just about every senior Canadian military and Foreign Affairs official in Afghanistan that there were serious questions with the monitoring of how Afghan prisoners taken by Canadian troops were being treated. From early 2007 on, recognition of the problem wasn’t the problem; figuring out how to fix it, and winning political approval for the fix, was.”
In other words, there was no torture; everyone knew there was torture. Colvin never complained about torture; Colvin was hysterical about torture. Colvin only discovered the torture problem in April 2007; by April 2007, everyone and his dog knew there was a torture problem.
Or, to put it another way, “I never borrowed your bucket. It was in perfect shape when I gave it back to you. I wish I had never borrowed the bucket anyway because the damed thing has a hole in it.”
One can scarcely imagine the embarrassment in the Globe newsroom at this meretricious imitation of journalism, especially in light of the excellent work Smith and other Globe reporters have done on this story.
In a world where bloggers often deride their mainstream counterparts, it’s important to note that Blatchford is an exception to the many mainstream reporters (Smith, Murray Brewster, Paul Koring, Steve Maher, and others) who have done solid reporting on the torture scandal.
Blatchford makes herself useful
In the PMO War Room, columnist Christie Blatchford must have seemed an inspired choice. She can turn a purple phrase with the best of them. She stands foursquare for troops, widows, and orphans. She’s against plummies, toffs, and pointyheads. She’s long on guts and glory, short on assay. She has an ego as big as the Ritz, and fragile as a Gruyère Soufflé. To receive a document drop on a Matter of National Importance would be sweet validation.
So the Harper Government—someone in the Harper Government—got the brilliant idea of handing Blatchford a trove of Richard Colvin’s long-sought emails from Kandahar, the same documents Harper has thus far refused to surrender to Parliament.
This is a standard bit of hardball damage control. Before releasing damning documents to anyone who might review them critically, pass them instead to a compliant journalist—a “high-value third-party,” in PR lingo—who can be counted on to convey their content with government-friendly gloss.
Blatchford did not disappoint. Her piece in Saturday’s Globe is replete with snide references to Colvin, who did not spend enough time outside the wire for her liking. Apparently volunteering to step into the shoes of the highest ranking diplomat ever to be killed in Afghanistan isn’t sufficient for our combat-besotted scribe.
Blatchford says the document drop “appears to be the entire collection” of Colvin’s Afghan e-mails. Journalists who have actually followed the torture testimony confirm that she appears to have some documents not among those previously released, but she is also missing others. Even by Blatchford’s own account, the documents she got range from “virtually completely blacked out” through “heavily redacted” to [snideness alert] “rattl[ing] on at such length they could have done with a little more redacting.”
The omissions neither trouble Blatchford nor deter her from complaining about what Colvin doesn’t say. She finds nothing in the documents that might have alarmed Colvin’s superiors, noting one memo’s observation that the Kandahar prison was, “not that bad” and “not the worst in Afghanistan.” She somehow overlooked these sections of Memo Kandh-0138:
Of the [redacted] detainees we interviewed, [redacted] said [redacted] had been whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and/or otherwise “hurt”….detainees still had [redacted] on [redacted] body; [redacted] seemed traumatized.
Individual sat with his toes curled under his feet. When he straightened his toe, it could be seen that the nails of the big toe and the one next to it, were a red-orange on the top of the nail, although the new growth underneath appeared fine. When we asked him about his treatment [redacted] rather than Kabul, he became quiet. He said that [redacted] he had been “hurt” and “had problems.” However, he is “happy now.” He did not elaborate on what happened [redacted]. [Redacted] seemed very eager to please, very deferential, and expressed gratitude for our visit. General impression was that he was somewhat traumatized.
When we asked him about his treatment [redacted] he said he had “a very bad time. They hit us with cables and wires.” He said they also shocked him with electricity. He showed us a number of scars on his legs, which he said were caused by the beating. He said he was hit for [redacted] days….
He and others told [redacted] that three fellow detainees had had their fingers “cut and burned with a lighter”….When we asked about his own treatment [redacted] he said that he was hit on his feet with a cable or a “big wire” and forced to stand for two days, but “that’s all.” He showed us a mark on the back of his ankle, which he said was from the cable. [Note: There was a dark red mark on the back of his ankle.] [Hat tip: Dawg's Blawg & Voice from the Pack.]
Blatchford gloats that Colvin’s most prolific period as a memo-writier dates from a period in 2007 after Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith began filing reports on Afghan abuse of detainees arrested by Canadian soldiers. This may or may not be true, given that Blatchford is clearly missing half of Colvin’s 2006 reports (and God knows what else). It also shows remarkable intellectual flexibility, given that Blatchford believes nothing bad ever happened to the Afghans we arrested. The mere mention of Smith’s compelling reportage to the contrary must be embarrassing to her.
The redactions are interesting. Let’s call this fellow Detainee 1:
And this fellow Detainee 2:
What exactly are the national security imperatives that prevent disclosure of what Detainee 1 was told after his several beatings, and what he alleged? Why is it vital to Canada’s security that we not know how many men interrogated Detainee 2, or for how long? He was allegedly threatened [blank] and, some time after the interrogation, told that he would not be [blank]. Why doesn’t the government want to fill in these blanks?
There is a bigger issue here than whether one gullible columnist wants to abet Harper’s assassination of one diplomat’s character. For weeks, the opposition MPs who constitute a majority in the House of Commons, our only elected federal institution, have been trying to get their hands on the relevant documents. For weeks Harper has put them off, promising eventual delivery while insisting that General Rick Hillier and Ambassador David Mulroney give their evidence before MPs had a chance to study the documentary record.
“The government has. and will continue. to make all legally available information available.” Harper told the Commons.
Now suddenly the unreleased documents turn up in a friendly (and not very sophisticated) columnist’s inbox. All the pious fretting about national security was, bluntly, a lie; the real concern all along was damage control—even when the issue at hand is Canadian complicity in torture.
Footnote: On the Globe’s website, conservative blogger Norman Spector pleads with Harper for the third time to call an inquiry into the torture allegations. Spector warns of a cloud on the horizon in the form of a Wall Street Journal report that Luis Moreno Ocampo, chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, “is already conducting a ‘preliminary examination’ into whether NATO troops… may have to be put in the dock” over torture allegations.
“I knew Richard Colvin in university…”
Isfahan Merali, a lawyer on leave from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, attended the University of Toronto with Richard Colvin. She writes:
I knew Richard at university, and although we lost touch some years ago, he was always one of the most decent, fair, and compassionate individuals I have had the privilege of knowing. I am shocked at the outrageous motives that have been applied to his character.
Anyone that had known Richard for even a few days would know, without a shadow of a doubt, that he would only have raised this internally because of serious concerns and because of his professionalism and his unerring commitment to strong ethical and human rights values. We need to be proud of him and be grateful that we have professionals such as Richard in our government. I hope that he knows that the many people that know him are incredibly proud of what he is doing.
