So, the big news over the last day or so is how the Stephen Harper Party of Canada, while sniffing contemptuously at the relentless accusations of Afghan prisoner torture and abuse and denigrating and insulting anyone who raised the subject, quietly stopped such transfers months ago without mentioning it to anyone.
And the Canadian dumbass, wingnut reaction? Like you had to ask:
So despite the agony and moaning from the Liberals prior to this revelation in the three months before now, the Conservatives have done the right thing...
With all the foregone conclusions on the Harper government and complicity in torture, will the opposition and critics apologize at least for having asserted a falsehood? Will they give the Harper government credit for the diligence shown in ensuring the humane treatment of detainees? Or will they use this as an opportunity to surmise a neo-conservative agenda of obfuscation which is ideologically aligned with the Americans and their jackbooted torture squads?
I'm leaning toward the latter assertions being most forthcoming.
I didn't think these people could possibly get any stupider or more childish, but every day is a new opportunity for surprise, isn't it?
BONUS TRACK: And make sure you check out the extra goodies here as well.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: As Impolitical references in the CBC article here (emphasis added):
The BCCLA and Amnesty said they will continue their legal action because the government has refused to stop the transfers indefinitely and refuses to give notice when it resumes them.
They are suing the minister of national defence, the chief of defence staff and the attorney general of Canada.
Champ, the lawyer representing the two groups, said Justice Anne Mactavish is to hear arguments Thursday about the risk of torture in Afghan custody and whether an injunction should be issued barring transfers until the full case is heard.
The government said the matter is moot because transfers have ceased, but rights groups said it is still important because the government refuses to give notice before any possible resumption, Champ told CBCNews.ca.
See what just happened there? The Stephen Harper Party of Canada is clearly trying to have the lawsuit voided since, well, the transfers stopped, so what's the big deal? In other words, when their back is against the wall, they'll bend just long enough and far enough to make that lawsuit moot. Sound familiar? It should:
Padilla Lawyers Urge Supreme Court to Block Transfer
WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 - Lawyers for Jose Padilla told the Supreme Court on Friday that it should not grant the government's emergency request to have him transferred from a military brig to civilian custody to face terrorism charges in a civil court.
The lawyers acknowledged that Mr. Padilla would prefer to be in civilian custody eventually. But they said it appeared that the only reason for the government's rush to move him was to bolster the administration's efforts to discourage the Supreme Court from reviewing the crucial underlying issue of whether President Bush had the authority to detain Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant for more than three years.
"The government had the power to transfer Padilla from physical military custody for more than three years, yet only now does it deem swift transfer imperative," Mr. Padilla's lawyers argued in their brief filed Friday.
Why, yes ... having fought for more than three years to keep alleged terrorist Jose Padilla in military custody, only days before the Supreme Court is to rule on that issue, the Bush administration suddenly finds it necessary to quickly transfer him to civilian custody, which would, of course, make any further Supreme Court examination of the basic issue here redundant.
One wonders why we even have a Conservative Party of Canada. Why not just install the Republican Party at 24 Sussex Drive and be done with it? It's not like anyone would notice the difference.
ONE LAST RAPHAEL-SIZED TOWEL SNAP TO THE NADS: It's thoroughly entertaining to see Blogging Tory Raphael get his panties in a bunch and suggest that it's Stephen Harper's critics who owe Harper an apology. One wonders when all those critics, who have now been proven right, can expect an apology for this sort of hideous fuckery:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper played hardball partisan politics again, saying Liberal MPs care more about Taliban prisoners than Canadian soldiers.
"I can understand the passion that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners," Harper said Wednesday during Parliament's question period.
"I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."
As his MPs jeered the prime minister's remarks, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion called the statement shocking and asked for an apology.
He didn't get one.
And I'm not expecting that to change any time soon. And Raphael? Fuck right off. Again.
20 comments:
As a general rule, if a court cannot grant relief, a case is considered "moot." Here, the court cannot grant relief because the Government voluntarily stopped doing what plaintiffs wanted the Government to stop doing, but won't tell if they start again.
The ultimate case that presented this problem was the abortion case. It takes more than a year for a case to go from a trial court in the U.S., to a court of appeal and to the Supreme Court. By the time the case gets to the Supreme Court, the baby is born and the court cannot grant relief. It's moot. In the U. S. this is called "capable of repetition yet evading review."
In the U. S. the rule of law is that voluntary cessation of a challenged action does not render a case moot if the defendant reserves the right to resume the action.
Why does seer think every topic has to be a lesson in American law and jurisprudence?
All of this complexity could be avoided if the damn Government would just stop lying by commission or omission.
As for Raphael, I don't know what the hell he's talking about anymore.
ti-guy:
I'm not sure what bugs you about seer's comment above -- I appreciated the short tutorial in American law on the topic.
What? I can't be crabby? ;)
I just find lack of focus frustrating, though admittedly it's because the hot issue for me is the Government, the opposition and the media not providing us with the information to which we have a right to make decisions about what's going on.
In my lifetime, I've never seen it so bad with regard to matters that have very serious consequences.
We're talking about torture and abuse here, which, along with the killing of innocents, are issues of moral absolutism for me.
ti-guy: I'd never encourage you to stop being crabby -- it's part of your undeniable charm. :-)
But I'm wondering if what seer describes as part of American jurisprudence also applies up here. You'll notice that BCCLA and Amnesty have clearly stated that they're going to continue with their legal action for exactly that reason -- that the CPoC reserves the right to start up again whenever they want, with no notice and no notification.
Are there any lawyers in the crowd who can fill us in?
Fuck off, you guys.
I'm Crabby.
Perhaps I'm slow on the uptake here, but what does Seer's point about American jurisprudence have to do with the price of tea in China?
Isn't the point here that the government was willfully LYING to parliament when it self-righteously accused the the opposition of making false claims about the mistreatment of prisoners by Afghan authorities, and that it intentionally DECEIVED parliament by claiming that it was assured no mistreatment was taking place when their (hitherto undisclosed)policy on the ground clearly contradicted such specious assertions?
OK - I think everyone needs a nap. I knew I'd end up being the den mother around here at some point.
But I'm wondering if what seer describes as part of American jurisprudence also applies up here.
But Seer doesn't know Canadian law, and that's what I find irritating. It's almost as if he's making the case for the superiority of American law and jurisprudence, at least that's how I see it. In any case, it has no bearing here.
Um ... RT and ti-guy ... are the two of you being deliberately obtuse this morning, or are you just a bit dense today?
I realize that seer's observation isn't relevant to Canadian law. But it is informative in the sense of showing how a particular legal tactic won't fly down there, so it behooves us to ask whether the same thing applies up here.
And on that note, I'm going to pull rank and just toss any further comments bitching and whining about seer's initial comment. Seriously, there's a lot more to be annoyed about far more than an innocuous comment about American law.
Jeezus, it really is like a day care around here sometimes.
I meant it.
First of all, what we've seen is evidence that all of the allegations and shrieking that the Conservatives were complicit in torture, were egregious lies. The transfers stopped in November. Far from CC having the nads to credit the government for this, he uses the time honoured tradition of associating it all with a black conspiracy of clandestine Americano bashing.
As for the partisan comments Harper made in the house, they are indefensible and unworthy of the honour of a Prime Minister. You got that much right. Of course, the sentiment is understandable.
The love is mutual CC.
First of all, what we've seen is evidence that all of the allegations and shrieking that the Conservatives were complicit in torture, were egregious lies. The transfers stopped in November.
Okay - stop right there. If Harper had no issue with putting a halt to the transfers, why has it been a secret up to now? Could it be because he's incapable of admitting that he just might be wrong, maybe kinda sorta? Nah, couldn't be that.
After all, Harper and his ministers never missed an opportunity to use the issue to try and score cheap points against the Opposition, safe in the knowledge that they were on the side of “the troops” and the Liberals et al were not. The CPoC’s turned this into a partisan bashing contest and now they’re going to wear it. And in my opinion, it looks outstanding on them.
If Harper had no issue with putting a halt to the transfers, why has it been a secret up to now?
It's a good question, but your suggested answer is just that. Baseless speculation. We really don't know why Stephen Harper didn't tell us. I'd say the more relevant fact is that prisoners were not being tortured and you and your colleagues continued to suggest long after November 5.
And how was anyone to know that they weren't being tortured since the government kept it secret? We can go round and round on this forever, RA, but at the end of the day, Harper used this for points and then covered it up when it got ugly.
And that is completely dishonest behaviour from the so-called "party of accountability".
Holy fuck, Raphael, but you're an imbecile. Where to even begin?
First, there was the condescending, derisive dismissal of all those people who kept trying to point out that transferred Afghan prisoners were being abused, to the point of referring to those people as pro-Taliban and not caring about soldiers.
Add to that the fact that, when the Harperoids finally couldn't deny the overwhelming evidence, they finally stopped transferring prisoners, but refused to admit it and, furthermore, refused to apologize to all those good people they had been slandering all that time.
But -- and here's the kicker -- consider that, even after the CPoC stopped transferring prisoners, they continued to act as if they were, to the point of even making that claim in a Federal Court.
Now, Raphael, do you understand why you're being such an unprincipled douchebag here? Really, I can't explain it any more clearly than this.
By the way, Raphael, we need not "speculate" on how long your bestest friend Stephen Harper has known that something was horribly wrong over there. So don't even think of trying some kind of "Well, he just didn't know before then" bullshit defense.
Really, you folks just have a serious hate-on for reality, don't you?
And that is completely dishonest behaviour from the so-called "party of accountability".
Lulu, nobody is defending the Harper government for transparency and accountability [or nobody in their right mind should]. The meat of the issue is that we've seen direct evidence of a credible torture allegation, and a response from the government which is commensurate with Canadian values.
Holy fuck, Raphael, but you're an imbecile. Where to even begin?
How about your mother, and her washing your filthy mouth out?
First, there was the condescending, derisive dismissal of all those people who kept trying to point out that transferred Afghan prisoners were being abused, to the point of referring to those people as pro-Taliban and not caring about soldiers.
I've already addressed that point, although I will add that it certainly was distressing how interested the opposition seemed to be in the allegations of torture, rather than reports of casualties or progress.
Add to that the fact that, when the Harperoids finally couldn't deny the overwhelming evidence, they finally stopped transferring prisoners, but refused to admit it and, furthermore, refused to apologize to all those good people they had been slandering all that time.
I see. And have you apologized for slandering the government that they have been complicit in torture, when in fact they stopped transfers in November? Your only beef here seems to be the clandestine nature of the Harper government, not the torture allegations, which have now been proven to have been handled by the government.
RA
the only beef seems to be the clandistine nature of the Harper Gov'ment......
WTF is that!!!!!
Don't correct me if I'm wrong but here I thought the Gov,that being the "New Government of Canada" was going to be above all that and be
transparent in their dealings and on and on ad nauseum.
Unless They don't want to cuz it makes them look and sound like wingnuts.
Further more proven to have been handled by the Gov. doesn't mean they didn't do it in the first place.Lord have have mercy on fools and sinners...
Post a Comment