Stephen Harper: I Heart Torture
October 3, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Well, what else am I supposed to believe after reading this story:
All three opposition parties have demanded that a diplomat who may have crucial information about the alleged torture of Taliban prisoners be allowed to testify before a military watchdog inquiry.
The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois each took turns peppering the Tory government Friday with questions about Richard Colvin, whom government lawyers are trying to strike from a witness list.
In this situation, being part of a cover up is as bad – as evil – as being part of the original transgression. Torture has no place in the military operations of a liberal nation. I’m not trying to put my head in the sand and say that it will never ever happen if it is not sanctioned by high-level decision makers, but when suspicions arise, our military and political structures have to be tuned to identifying and eliminating these abuses.
If the Conservative government wants to maintain a hawkish foreign policy, that’s fine; they’re the government and they get to take the lead in setting policy (though they don’t have the only say). If, as part of this philosophy, they feel that certain interrogation techniques are valid, techniques that the rest of us might consider unacceptable, then they should be open and direct when questioned. They should defend, in both practical terms and ethical terms, the interrogation techniques that our military sanctions, and they should do so in an open and robust debate. They should not try to control the participants to an official inquiry.
Even the rhetoric they are employing is offensive, both to our intellects and to our soldiers. Check out this exchange:
[Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings said the “honour and dignity” of Canadian soldiers demanded that the government be more open and stop “stonewalling” – something [parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, Laurie] Hawn, a former military officer, interpreted as a slight against those in uniform.
“To suggest the Canadian Forces or this government does not take seriously the type of allegations – allegations only – that have come forward is obnoxious,” he said.
This is utter nonsense, and Mr. Hawn should be ashamed, as I would think a man of his position is smarter than to actually believe the tripe he let out. Ms. Jennings was defending our troops. Our troops, on the whole, are honourable and they respect the inherent dignity of humanity as they carry out their difficult and dangerous tasks. In order to maintain any sort of integrity in the military structure, when allegations of torture are presented we must shine as much light on the situation as possible.
This is the practical application of an interventionist liberal foreign policy. Assuming that our soldiers are not, inherently, torturers (which was Ms. Jennings’ point), and deciding to fully investigate any allegations of torture is not “obnoxious”. “Obnoxious” would be an obstinate stance that claims there can be no reason to be concerned about the possibility that the government and military are not doing there utmost to investigate and eliminate crimes against basic human decency.
I’m with Jim Manzi on the issue torture. Even if we put aside the ethical issues relating to torture, torturous nations do not thrive; they do not persist. This is not the type of nation that Canada should become. Further, attempting to hide information about torture will serve us no benefit, either. As a nation, we cannot survive by avoiding the truth and walling off information to the public. Sticking one’s head in the sand serves no purpose but to expose one’s neck.
Was this torture carried out by Canadian soldiers? If not what are we supposed to do with captured prisoners. Bring them back to Canada ? That would be an incredibly stupid move. The alternative would be “DO NOT TAKE ANY PRISONERS ALIVE. Imagine how much that would give the bleeding hearts to squawk about .
This isn’t about torture. It’s about trying to bring about as much embarrassment as possible to the government.
Wafergate.
Logogate.
Torturegate.
It’s never ending.
I’m with Laurie Hawn on this one.
NeilD
Funny, isn’t Iggy a self-proclaimed proponent of torture?
Iggy “authored, articulated, advocated and propogated” the tome on torture. He’s one of the main reasons George W’s wars were as “dirty” as the seem to have been.
The last couple of items for the “-gate” file:
shutthegate
majoritygate.
THEN we’ll find out ALL about Adscam, the Gun Registry, HRDC, etc etc etc.
t.e. & o.e.
Jonathan, that’s not what I got out of the article at all.
The way I read it was that the Opposition Parties are trying to find ways to tie the Conservatives to torture in any way, shape and form, and they want to use this diplomat to do it.
Laurie Hawn, in my opinion, is stating that this investigation has been limited by the Federal Court to the conduct of the Military Police only, and he (and his department) is seeking to ensure that if the diplomat testifies at this commission that it will remain within the confines and purview of those limitations.
To me it looks like a department protecting a diplomat from being the subjected to a witch-hunt simply because he’s testifying. If someone is intending to conduct exploratory questioning outside the limitations of the commission, it’s a valid concern, and an appropriate action to take.
Sean, there is little doubt in my mind that people will try to hi-jack the investigation to push other goals. I also wouldn’t be terribly surprised if those running the inquiry decide to expand their scope a bit.
However, I find this irrelevant when judging the action of the Conservative government. Mr. Colvin may have no relevant information to offer the investigation (assuming the narrow focus of the investigation is adhered to), but the government shouldn’t be making that decision. Let’s find out what he has to say and let the investigation determine its relevance.
Further, if Mr. Colvin has alarming information that falls outside of the purview of the investigation, the Conservative government should let that information be known (possibly excepting for classified information), then either refute any allegations or address any issues of torture that come to light.
Procedural concerns should not trump a robust discussion about our presence in Afghanistan.
Certainly not, and please don’t think I’m being an apologist here. I support an open discussion surrounding the topic of torture. However, that being said, I don’t want to see this commission hi-jacked for something not directly related to the investigation. 1, it would totally defeat the reason for the initial commission, and 2) it only serves to cloudy up the waters allowing for further legal wrangling. We are all very aware of how adept lawyers are at getting previous testimony’s disregarded because “the statements were made improperly” or whatever such nonsense.
IF the opposition parties want this man to testify regarding a specific subject, plainly put: follow the rules and do it right.
So while I agree that procedural concerns should not trump a robust discussion, I believe it’s wholly ignorant to dismiss them because doing so corrupts the system and allows for loopholes.
As for the title, I’d suggest removing the quotes. You’re bordering on libel there.
It’s a little far afield to make that connection too.
It’s like accusing him of supporting the drowning and abuse of kittens just because he didn’t join in the protest against the Seal Hunt.
Point taken, I have removed the quotation marks. I was mainly just going for the pop culture reference.
However, I stand by my criticism of his government, and their complicity in possible torture. Mr. Harper has demonstrated in the past that he has control over the message his government sends out. If his government does not change course on this matter, I will stand by the basic point of my post.