The Banana Republic of Canada

In the wake of the O'Connor and Iacobucci public inquiries into the role CSIS played in the torture of Canadians overseas, a new government rulebook of guidelines was issued to CSIS and various blandishments were offered by the ministers in charge.

What's in the new rulebook?
Pogge blogged a couple of days ago about a copy obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act that is so heavily censored it is impossible to tell whether the new guidelines adequately address the recommendations laid out by O'Connor and Iacobucci to prevent future torture such as that visited upon Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, and Muayyed Nureddin. As Pogge wrote :

"When representatives of government and its agencies assure us that they're playing by the rules, it's a little difficult to judge the accuracy of their claims when we're not allowed to know what those rules are."

This was also the position our elected representatives on the Committee on Public Safety and National Security found themselves in back in March during its Review of the Findings and Recommendations of the Iacobucci and O'Connor Reports. Despite persistent straightforward questions from the Liberals and Bloc members - Do we condone torture? Do we still use information derived from torture? - the dodging and weaving from CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O'Brian left these questions largely unanswered.
A brief media flurry resulted from his opening statement that there is no absolute ban on the use of information derived from torture when "lives are at stake", but this was immediately laid to rest the next day when the word "knowingly" was added by Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan", as in "we don't knowingly use info extracted by torture". It's the new Don't ask, Don't tell Intel.

As O'Brian explained to the committee : "Three individuals are suing the government for several hundred million dollars, therefore we cannot discuss anything that would indicate that the government is in agreement with Iacobucci's findings."

He is aided in this avoidance of accountability by the six Con members on the committee running interference on tough questions from the Libs and the Bloc. From my notes of that session -not exact quotes :
Maria Mourani, Bloc : I'd like to ask about our questioning of Omar Khadr in Guantanamo ...
Dave MacKenzie, Con : Point of order : what's the relevance?
Mourani : Khadr was tortured and Canadians paid CSIS to contribute.
Chair Garry Breitkreuz, Con : I don't understand the relevance.
Mourani : I want to know did CSIS use information from Khadr obtained under torture?MacKenzie : Point of order - Mourani is on a fishing trip.

I'll just give you a moment to let that one sink in.

Mourani : I'll rephrase the question : Is information obtained under torture?
Chair, Breitkreuz : Witnesses cannot comment on individual cases.
Mark Holland, Lib : But the questiuon is central to this inquiry.
Rathgeber, Con : Point of order. Not relevant. Stick to Iacobucci and O'Connor reports.

Which, you will recall, O'Brian has already said cannot be commented on due to ongoing litigation.

Menard, Bloc : Mourani is right. This is central to the O'Connor and Iacobucci reports. What we want to know is: Is torture still endorsed?
Mourani : Answer my question.
O'Brian, eventually : "I reject the premise of the question"

And thus CSIS informs elected members of parliament - the peoples' representatives - sitting on a committee whose mandate is to provide public oversight on intelligence agencies - to stuff it.


A couple of years ago I was sitting in a bar in the States discussing politics with some university students. "How are things up there after the coup?" one of them asked.
Me : *blink* *blink*
"Perhaps you don't call it a coup," said another helpfully.
We not only don't call it a coup, we don't even ever refer to it.
In 2006 as Liberal PM Paul Martin seemed almost certain to be re-elected, RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli went very public with a criminal investigation into rumoured Liberal government political malfeasance around Income Tax leaks and that was the end of the Libs. Nothing came of the investigation save one lone Finance civil servant pocketing some loot. No inquiry was ever launched into why the head of the national police force, himself later disgraced over Arar, in effect threw the outcome of a national election.

Can individual rogue members of that national police force be brought to justice? Apparently not.
And exactly which intelligence agencies are responsible for the continued incarceration of Omar Khadr and the ongoing banishment of Abousfian Abdelrazik? Well we don't really know.

What we do know is that we have lost public oversight over our police and intelligence agencies. Isn't this the kind of thing we used to sneer at "banana republics" for?

Cross-posted at Creekside

Birth of a northern banana republic

Good opinion piece in the Star from Jim Travers today : The quiet unravelling of Canadian democracy.
It's not often one reads in the press about our slow slide towards becoming a northern banana republic and I can't remember the last time anyone mentioned the quiet coup perpetuated on an unwitting electorate by Canada's premier paramilitary organization - RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli ousts Martin - or the failure of our three main parties to address it.

To Jim's points I would add the following three conditions that also qualify Canada for banana republic status :

The Security and Prosperity Partnership
Rumours of its demise have been greatly exaggerated and mostly by its fans. A government assisted corporate plan to free up the movement of capitol and labour without public participation or oversight within a militarized North America, it has scarcely received mention since the last big Three Amigos bunfest. Yet on Thursday Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan appeared before the public safety committee to announce some princely sum in the millions "towards further implementation of the SPP".

Dispensing with the bother of elected representation
In addition to the first-past-the-post electoral system in which only a handful of votes in a few swing ridings actually count, there is the matter of both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition holding office by fiat. Harper dissolved parliament rather than face an election and Iggy was just simply crowned after the Liberal Party executive voted not to give the actual rank and file members of the Liberal Party the vote.

Media concentration
Canadians are more likely to know the names of Sarah Palin's grandchildren than they are to know that they probably received this news from just three Canadian media corporations.

Banana republic stuff - all of it.
Travers' column previously noted today by Jennifer, Chrystal, and Chet.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Torturing our intelligence

Reading the media hullabaloo about Made in Canada torture - Tuesday's big exposé followed by Thursday's big retraction - I have to wonder if they watched the same proceedings I did.

Appearing before the public safety committee on Tuesday, CSIS lawyer Geoffrey O'Brian testified that Canadian intelligence agencies would make use of information obtained by torture from foreign agencies in the "one-in-a-million" eventuality that "lives were at stake".
In fact, said O'Brian, who has been with CSIS since its inception in 1984, "we would be bound to do so."

Under further questioning from aghast committee members, he admitted that agencies often "have no idea under what conditions info received from foreign agencies is obtained" and "just because a country has a questionable or even abysmal human rights record does not mean info received from them is necessarily extracted by torture".

That would be the old don't ask, don't tell Syria defence. CSIS Director Jim Judd gave that very same defence about intelligence from Syria on Arar back in November 2006.
So are we still trading info with Syria and Egypt? Yes we are, but now "with caveats".

The committee members pressed on : "What Canadians want to hear is that we do not condone the use of information derived from torture."

O'Brian :

"I would love to give you a simple answer. The simple answer is that we will never use info from torture. I cannot say that because recipients of info do not know how that info was obtained. I can say we do not knowingly" - and he stressed this again -"knowingly use info extracted by torture."

Huge resulting stink in the Star, G&M, and CBC.

Then yesterday CSIS Director Jim Judd and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan went before the same public safety committee to spin this sucker clarify. Judd :

"I think it's unfortunate that Mr. O'Brian may have been confused in his testimony. He will clarifying that via a letter to this committee. I know of no instance where such information has been made use of by our service."

and

"He [O'Brian] ventured into the hypothetical. In the past we used information received obtained by torture. Such information is not to be relied upon. We've changed our policies. Our policy now is under no circumstances do we condone the use of torture for any reason."

Judd went on to explain that the intelligence agencies are directed in this policy by the federal government.
Ok, that seems pretty straight forward, right?

Next up - Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan responding to Bloc MP Mourani - italics mine :

"We do not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering and our clear directive to our law enforcement agencies and intelligence services is that they are not to condone the use of torture, practice torture, or knowingly use any information obtained by torture."

Uh oh.
And here's the relevant quote from O'Brian's "clarification" letter - again, italics mine :

"I wish to clarify for the committee that CSIS certainly does not condone torture and that it is the policy of CSIS to not knowingly rely upon information that may have been obtained through torture."

Uh oh. Anybody see any difference between Tuesday's "confusion" and Thursday's clarification"? Because I don't.
As O'Brian points out, if we have no clue how the info we get is obtained, we're free to go ahead and use it. And this would presumably be just as true on Thursdays as it is on Tuesdays.

I'd also like to point out that the RCMP got a completely free ride here in the media coverage.
In his opening statement to the commitee on Tuesday, RCMP spokesman Gilles Michaud rejected the use of torture as repugnant and the information obtained thereby as unreliable, but explained the RCMP position on the use of intelligence obtained from foreign agencies :

"I want to be clear here - there is no absolute ban on the use of any information by the RCMP."

Uh huh.
O'Brian lost control of the spin there for a moment here - and that's all that happened.

Cross-posted at Creekside

George Galloway runs afoul of the Canada-Israel "border"

Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has stated repeatedly that the banning of George Galloway from Canada is not his responsibility.
Well of course it isn't.
It's the responsibility of the Canadian Border Services Agency under Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan.

Say, how's that Canada-Israel "homeland security" border coming along?

State of Israel - Ministry of Public Security :

"On November 17-26, a delegation from the Ministry of Public Security visited the United States and Canada on an official visit. The visit was within the framework of the joint work team with the American Department of Homeland Security on Science and Technology.

In March 2008 a Declaration of Intent was signed between the Israeli Ministry of Public Security and the Canadian Ministry of Public Safety in order to promote mutual interests in the fields of the battle against organized crime, human trafficking, terrorist financing, managing crisis situations, border security, crime prevention and other aspects of homeland security.

The first work meetings of the two sides were held on November 24-26 in Ottawa, Canada, with the aim at forming a framework for the implementation of the agreement signed between the two countries.

The meetings were attended by the Deputy Director General of the Ministry, the Chief Scientist, representatives of the Israel Police and the Israel Prison Service, a representative of the Counter Terrorism Division in the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister, and representatives of the Canadian Ministry of Public Safety, the Canadian Police and Canadian Prison Service.

The meetings focused on the following fields:

• Security of strategic facilities
• Border control
• Emergency preparedness
• Correction facilities and services
• Crime and delinquency
• Science and technology – including law enforcement and counter terrorism
  technologies.

During the meetings the two parties surveyed their primary activities in their fields and examined potential projects of mutual interest. The meetings concluded by deciding on primary principles of the operational and technological cooperation between the two countries in the above fields. "

.
Public Safety Canada :
Declaration of Intent Between the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada and the Ministry of Public Security of the Government of the State of Israel :

To establish a Management Committee that would:
Be comprised of the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada, and the Director General of Public Security for the Government of the State of Israel;
Meet annually and as needed to develop and approve a program of work, consistent with the scope and objectives of this Declaration, for that upcoming year;

To achieve the following objectives:
Build on their shared commitment to facilitate and enhance cooperation to protect their respective countries’ population, assets and interests from common threats;

Integrate and coordinate of the identification, prioritization, and implementation of cooperative efforts between themselves in the area of public safety;

I'm guessing somewhere amongst all that "shared commitment" and "enhanced cooperation", George Galloway fell under the heading of "aspects of homeland security : projects of mutual interest" and "common threats" at a CBSA "program of work".

.
Harper is seen above on Thursday "urging all Canadians to confront what he calls a 'rising tide of anti-Semitism' around the world" :

Harper, who was joined by Conservative MP Peter Kent, who represents the area, urged all Canadians to "confront" anti-Semitism as a "moral evil."

Speaking of "moral evil", Harper has previously joined George Bush in publicly attempting to blur the lines between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.
.
Presumably he's referring in his speech Thursday to people like this or this or this or this .
.

What can you do? L-Girl has a list of actions.

.

Cross-posted at Creekside

A parliament of potty mouths

And they're back with pledges of renewed civility in the House.

"I agree that decorum has gone down somewhat,"admitted Speaker of the House Peter Millikin, in what must be described as an underunderstatement.

"We want to be very serious," pledged Jay Hill, the new Conservative House leader who took over the position from Peter Van Loan, famous, along with his compatriot Pierre Poilievre, for his fondness for using sign language in the House.

Gone will be the parliamentary practise of responding to the opposing party's arguments by making an L on one's forehead with thumb and forefinger. Never again will Con MP Royal Galipeau, himself a contender for Speaker of the House up till a couple of hours ago, storm the Liberal backbenches to grapple with Lib MP David McGuinty.

Personally I think this proposed civility thing is a big mistake.

Arm the buggers, I say! Break out the parliamentary catapaults! Build a moat in the aisle and fill it with green jello. I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

FETCHEZ LA VACHE!

.

Picture ripped off from Ottawonk

Cross-posted at Creekside

The Stephen Harper Party kneels before the High Priestess

As Steve V says, interesting defence of Sandra Buckler.

"She acknowledged she misspoke, and she handled herself in a professional and competent fashion," said Mr. Van Loan. "If everybody up on the Hill who misspoke themselves once in their life had to resign, none of you would be here, I wouldn't be here, nobody would be here up on Parliament Hill."

No, Van Loan, she lied. Further, in an effort to shed her nasty little boss in a better light, she tried to blame the troops. So, what does Van Loan do? He just adds to the lie.

"The question of transfers is one that has always been an operational decision of the military in the field and we aren't going to comment on that," government House leader Peter Van Loan told reporters.

Grab that. That's their talking point. They don't have another one. So when Buckler flat-out lied it had already been distributed as the scripted answer. The great dodge.

Van Loan is full of shit. The operational decision in the field is limited. The longer term decision is one requiring government approval.

Then he adds this:

But Mr. Van Loan said the disclosure of too many details about detainees could endanger Canadian troops.

"To give information about where they may be, whether they're being transferred or not, where they're being held, how many there may be and so on, that's the kind of information that would put our troops in the field at risk."

More bullshit.

Nobody asked for specific details. The general arrangements however, are a matter of public policy. I will repeat, once a combatant has been taken prisoner divulging the fact is a matter of meeting an international standard of conduct. The enemy already knows who has been taken prisoner and they have a good accounting of the numbers. Disclosure of those details does not put any Canadian troops at any more risk than they already are.

In fact, in order to comply with the Geneva Conventions, Canada must disclose who has been taken prisoner and provide for monitoring by a third party. Van Loan seems have missed the point that Canada's policy towards all captive taken in theatre is to observe all aspects of the rules of armed conflict including the treatment and processing of enemy combatants taken prisoner.

The risk to our troops is being created by the Harperites who, in an effort to save their own political asses and hide from the embarrassment generated by their own ridiculous secrecy, are suggesting that Canadian troops are not required to observe the rules which have been driven into the Canadian military ethos from the first day a person enters the service.

Peter MacKay and Stockwell Day are always more than willing to point out that the "enemy" is watching and listening to the debate in Canada. That when we question "the mission" we embolden the "enemy".

They might then want to listen to their own words. If the "enemy" is keeping tabs on everything we debate surrounding Afghanistan, the fact that we are no longer transferring prisoners into Afghan government custody might actually increase the security of Canadian troops.

Despite the rabid howls from the mouth-breathers of the authoritarian right-wing, we have never had a Canadian soldier taken captive or tortured in Afghanistan. If MacKay and Day are right, then the fact that Canadian combatants treat prisoners with the respect due a surrendered combatant might one day translate to the difference, should any of our troops fall captive, between having a Canadian soldier returned whole and alive instead of in two or more separate pieces.

Interesting that Van Loan should express so much concern for the safety of Canadian troops when clearly his first concern is the preservation of Harper's personal mouthpiece, and she clearly doesn't give a red rat's ass about the troops.

Calls for Buckler's resignation will continue of course, but don't expect it to happen any time soon. Dismissing insiders and loyalists is not a Conservative Party trait. And as deBeauxOs said here, Buckler knows where all the bodies are buried.

Bare-faced racism

Brought to you by Steve Harper and Tubby Van Loan.

The Harper government on Friday introduced legislation requiring all voters — including veiled Muslim women — to show their faces before being allowed to cast ballots in federal elections.

Which now means that people appearing in front of a deputy returning officer to vote will undoubtedly require some form of government issued photo ID. Otherwise, what's the purpose of making people bare their faces?

Peter Van Loan, the minister responsible for democratic reform, said he hopes the bill will settle the potentially corrosive debate over the accommodation of diverse religious beliefs.

But opposition parties and some Muslim groups suggested it will do just the opposite. They fear the bill will give a national podium to the heated debate that has provoked some ugly anti-immigrant sentiment in Quebec.

Therein lies the crux of this whole thing. There was no real issue. Harper tried to turn it into one, only to be given a clinic in regulation reading and interpretation by Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand.

Interpret this move any way you like. This is pandering to a group of islamophobes and racists.