As Transparent as a Brick Wall

When John Manley pressed the Harper government to be more transparent about the mission in Afghanistan, I don't think he meant like this.

Federal lawyers are attempting to shut down an investigation by the military police complaints commission into the handling of Taliban prisoners captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Big surprise. The Conservatives, who campaigned on promises of accountability and transparency, have been the most secretive, media-averse government in recent history. It begs the question: what are they so afraid of? Such tactics only serve to alienate them from voters, feed the suspicions of those who doubt their motives, and prevent them from breaking their own glass ceiling in the opinion polls.

Shorter Conservatives

"We were forced to lie, deceive and accuse the Opposition of siding with the Taliban in order to protect our troops".

The arrogance of mendacious cretins like Van Loan, MacKay and Buckler to assume that Canadians share their collective lack of intellect is positively stunning.

Amidst criticism from the Manley report that the CPC has been less than forthcoming in sharing details on the Afghan mission with Canadians, the CPC has taken the bold step of being less than forthcoming in sharing details of the Afghan mission with Canadians. Way to go, Steve.

Said Harper's Professional Sacrificial Lamb #3 (Van Loan),

"...there may be an interest in clarity and transparency and we support that"

Laughable. Peter Van Loan: another pitiful sailor on this Ship of Fools.

Nope, No Problems Here....

The emaciated young girl in the picture is a patient at the Mirwais Hospital in Kandahar City, Afghanistan. She is but one of many supposed beneficiaries of approximately $5 million contributed by Canada for supplies, food, and infrastructure at the hospital. If the girl seems a little underwhelmed, she can be forgiven. You see, no one at the Mirwais Hospital can confirm that any of Canada's aid money (given to the Red Cross via CIDA) has ever been received.

Video evidence collected by the Senlis Council has documented child starvation and a largely dysfunctional hospital, lacking in beds, equipment, medications and staff. According to Norine MacDonald, lead researcher for the Senlis Council: "We could not find evidence of CIDA's work or CIDA-funded work at the hospital. We were not able to find the maternity project, or evidence of the $5 million that CIDA says it has given".

Bev Oda, deftly picking up the reins of ineptitude from Josee Verner, has replied merely that she doesn't have those concerns "at all". Demonstrating that peculiar blend of incompetence and arrogance, she remains convinced that "progress" is being made. I don't mean to nitpick here, but wouldn't it be in the government's interest to ensure that Canadian money isn't being funneled directly into the pockets of corrupt administrators and Afghan officials? Don't we owe at least that much to the innocent victims of the NATO misadventure in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan: Let the Finger-Wagging Begin

Well, now that Stephen Harper has indicated that he wants "consensus" prior to a further extension of our mission in Afghanistan, opinions have been flying about what this actually means.

Some, like the Star's Thomas Walkom, feel that Harper's words are a tacit admission on his part that the mission is unpopular, generally unsuccessful, and that he will be unable to garner support to extend it beyond 2009. But a few have taken a different stance.

Take Andrew Coyne, for example. In his column in the National Post, he instead offers this interpretation of the PM's comments:

Read the last part of the Prime Minister's remarks: "I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work that they are doing in the field." Translated: that's exactly what's happening now.

"The Taliban", Coyne informs us "read the Western press". Maybe so, but I doubt even the Taliban are depraved enough to read the fish-wrapping we call the National Post. In any case, we are told that the Prime Minister has offered the opposition parties the chance to "grow up". Or at the very least, to explain their rationale for desiring troop withdrawal at the end of the current mandate in 2009. Coyne himself is at a loss to understand troop withdrawal:

And for what purpose? To whose benefit? The Afghans? No, it is quite clear they want us there. The troops? No, they are equally adamant, in every interview I have ever seen: they want to be there. Our NATO partners? Obviously not. The only agenda served by the opposition's demands is ? the opposition's.

In his rambling list, he curiously leaves out one important group. Canadians. According to a Decima Research poll released on June 10th:

Only one in four (26%) Canadians feel that “Canada should be willing to extend our mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 if that is necessary to complete our goals there.” Fully 67% felt that “we need to do our best to accomplish progress in Afghanistan but that we must stick to that deadline and get our troops out.” This is the majority view in every region, among men and women, urban and rural voters, all income and every age group.

But hey, we're just the voting public. Why should Coyne or Harper care what we think?

Meanwhile over at that other journalistic wasteland, the Sun, Jordan Michael Smith at least takes the time to acknowledge that most Canadians want out of Afghanistan in 2009. But his advice to nearly 70% of his fellow citizens is to be "honest" with themselves, and admit that they are not "internationalists" but rather "isolationists". What the hell "internationalist" means is anyone's guess, but Smith assures us that it is the more noble of the two options. "Isolationists", you see, have no real interests in humanitarian causes. They seek only what is good for Canadians, and thus are "uncomfortable taking casualties in a foreign country with slow, hard-to-measure progress". (Presumably therefore humane "internationalists" such as Smith are A-OK with Canadian soldiers dying for immeasurably small gains). And so, in that time-honoured CPC tradition, he admonishes those who oppose him, accusing them of wanting only "to look after themselves" and of condemning Afghanistan to a "medieval theocracy" (as opposed to the beacon of democracy it's well on its way to becoming).

It's a pity that such drivel finds its way to print.

Nauseating Picture of the Day

Needed: 1 "plus-sized" kevlar vest for self-important boob.

Calendar Now a Matter of National Security

Helena Guergis' has been steadfast in her moronic accusations that critics of the government's response to allegations of detainee torture in Afghanistan have been taking the word of the Taliban over that of our own troops.

Well, today came another specific allegation of detainee abuse by Afghan authorities. Yes, the same Afghan authorities who have been 'assuring' us (to the satisfaction of the Conservatives) that no abuses were taking place. And no doubt much to the chagrin of Ms. Guergis, this report comes not from the Taliban, but from one of our own soldiers, Col. Steve Noonan (or will Guergis start accusing Noonan of being in the Taliban?). Colonel Noonan was giving sworn statements in advance of legal proceedings launched by human rights advocates.

"The CF (Canadian Forces) learned that detainee had been beaten by the local ANP. When they learned of this, they approached the local ANP and requested that the detainee be given to them," Noonan said.

But, in a continuing effort by the government to obfuscate and cover-up rather than simply come clean and deal with the issue, the goverment's lawyer Sanderson Graham blocked any further questions into the incident including even the date on which it occured. His explanation was...well...inexplicable:

"When did that incident occur?" asked Paul Champ, the Amnesty lawyer.
"We object to that question," Graham replied.
"On what basis?"
"On the basis of national security," Graham said.
"It threatens Canada's national security to know when the Canadian Forces observed local Afghan National Police beating a detainee that they transferred to that unit?" Champ said.
"We object to any questions on this incident generally," Graham replied.

Another 'Day' of Confusion

One of the many Conservative responses to allegations of detainee torture in Afghanistan has been that they have never seen any specific allegations. According to Government House Leader Peter van Loan, the Tories have "yet to see one specific allegation of torture". Sounds pretty definitive eh? And it would be - if it was true.

As the Globe & Mail reports today, Stockwell Day was informed of specific abuse allegations last week. You can read about it here.
"We've actually had a couple of incidents where detainees said they were [tortured]" said Day.

PM Harper meanwhile continues to insist that he is satisfied by assurances from Afghan authorities that prisoners are not being abused by Afghan authorities.

Over at the National Post, Jonathan Kay has written an editorial about the "headline-hogging" story of prisoner abuse. He complains that the good news stories - such as the decline in infant mortality rates since the ouster of the Taliban - are being buried in favour of those detailing the government's response (or lack thereof) to torture allegations. He rightly admonishes suggestions that our politicos should be investigated as war criminals - idiocy and incompetence are not crimes - but goes on to suggest that we "are treating the whole exercise like one big human rights grad seminar". He misses the point. True, we should all celebrate our triumphs in Afghanistan. The Taliban were a group of animalistic tyrants whose deeds were a stain on humanity. The decline in infant mortality in Afghanistan is likely one of many admirable after-effects of their removal from power. But the fact that war is "messy" and the enemy dishonourable should never give us license to turn a blind eye to torture and mistreatment of prisoners, be they Taliban or otherwise. We owe it to the very people we free from tyranny that we adhere to principles of fundamental human rights. If we don't demonstrate to the Afghan people that we take basic human rights seriously (and that these rights apply to everyone), who else will?

Baird Doubles Personal CO2 Emissions Trying to Defend Enviro-Plan

1. As expected, the Conservative environmental plan has come under heavy attack from virtually all corners. Well, all except for big industry. John Baird found himself at odds with David Suzuki, Dalton McGuinty and others at an event designed to promote the "plan".

Some reactions:

"This plan is a terrible disappointment to me. No, I would say it's more than that. It's a sham..."

-David Suzuki

"It falls short of Canadian expectations."

-Dalton McGuinty

"They should go back and take the pulse of public opinion a little more carefully and come back with a better plan"

-Julia Langer, World Wildlife Fund Canada

After playing the blame game and passing the buck for a few minutes, Minister Baird 'turned the corner' and disappeared.

2. Can anyone in the Conservative government give a straight answer regarding the status of detainees in Afghanistan?? Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor was muzzled yesterday, and didn't even bother to show up to question period today. Just as well...he hasn't been able to string 2 sentences together lately without contradicting himself. Meanwhile, Stockboy Day has been floundering along and accusing opposition MPs of questioning the integrity of our troops and sympathizing with the Taliban. Disgusting behaviour from a group of colossal incompetents.

3. On a lighter note, the Raptors lost badly to the New Jersey Carters tonight. Watching Vince play like he actually cared was a novelty, and a bit tough to take. Anyways, this thing isn't over by a longshot, but the next game is kind of a 'must-win' for the boys, who can't afford to come back home down 3-1. Go Raps Go!