Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Breaking: Liberals want to overturn Nuremberg Trials.

Liberal MP John McCallum apparently believes the "I was only following orders" defense was valid.

"McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."

Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."

McCallum: "It's the government."


Do you idiots ever think about the real consequences of your actions? You cannot have this both ways Liberals. You cannot say that this has nothing to do with our troops and at the same time claim that the government committed war crimes. No MPs were in the field handing anyone over, it was OUR TROOPS and as the title of this post suggests; the defense of only following orders does not cut it.




FYI John McCallum was the Minister of Defense from June 26, 2002 – December 11, 2003. What did he know? He should brush up because if an inquiry does come HE is going to be called to explain the lack of policy and thought on this from the Liberals who committed us to this war.

More on the Liberal star John McCallum here, here, and here he is helping out his boss Ignatieff.

More on McCallum: He became widely known and criticized in 2002 when he admitted, while serving as the Minister of National Defence, that he had never heard of the 1942 Dieppe raid, a fateful and nationally significant operation for Canadian Forces during the Second World War. Ironically, he wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post in response, but committed a further gaffe, confusing Canadian participation in the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge in France with the Nazi-puppet state of Vichy France from 1940 to 1944.

This WHILE he was the Minister of Defense!!

25 comments:

NB Tory Gal said...

Did you know AA that your articles are being posted at the group I started. "I SUPPORT the Prorogation of Parliament and the Prime Minister of Canada"

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=240544201629

I used to blog as Conservative Reporter...

Well as soon as you publish something the public owns it...but thought you should know...actually many others who blog...if it is topical is published there.

Roy Eappen said...

Absolutely right AA.

maryT said...

Perhaps he had a fruedian (sp) slip and said what was going on under his govt. I don't believe for one second any of our troops committed a war crime. Maybe we need pictures of real war crimes posted. So when was the PM, or Peter, or O'Connor in afghan taking prisoners from the troops and giving them to the Afghans.
All I can say is, if any liberal candidate comes to my door he will get an earful.
Isn't McCallum the guy who was kicked off a plane for being drunk.
Maybe he was drunk today.
If iggy does not condem this NOW, we will know he is behind it.
I could spit nails.

Ardvark said...

I am expecting the Liberal spin machine to be out in full force in 5,4,3,2.....

Agent Smith said...

Wasn't McGollam the Defence minister who came up with 'Vichy' Ridge? I wonder if he's figured out what kind of a car he drives yet.

maryT said...

I hope someone is getting a screen shot of that interview before it disappears in neatherland.

ridenrain said...

If only we listened to Dion when he suggested we bring all Afghan prisoners here to Canada.

kursk said...

Heh.."Vichy" ridge, right after Paul Martin had us storming the beaches of Norway...

I don't who is the bigger boozer...

liberal supporter said...

the defense of only following orders does not cut it.
That comes from the Nuremburg trials. It refers to committing what any person should realize is a war crime. Things like shooting civilians and operating gas chambers.

Being ordered to hand over prisoners, even if you have heard rumours they might be tortured, isn't that kind of order. Refusing such an order will result in court martial and the only defense would be proving the rumours were true. It is those who received the numerous reports about it and did nothing, those who received the reports and gave orders to stop the reports, who are the ones who may be complicit in war crimes.

I am expecting the Liberal spin machine to be out in full force in 5,4,3,2.....
Your spin machine seems to be already up to speed. But in screaming the Liberals hate the troops, does it not make it urgent to prove the troops did nothing wrong?

Therefore, if you want to stick to that meme, this is an urgent situation which requires extraordinary measures. So it would make sense that the PM will cancel the proroguement, continue the inquiry, and provide the uncensored documents that were repeatedly promised and never delivered.

If he doesn't, then we know it is all CPC spin and desperation to hide the truth about what MacKay and Harper knew, when the knew it, and what they did about it.

Nice try though.

Ardvark said...

I was a bit off on the time but here you are =)

LS: "Being ordered to hand over prisoners, even if you have heard rumours they might be tortured, isn't that kind of order."

But it is a war crime or at least McCallum thinks so.

McCallum: ..handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime.


The Liberals are playing political games trying to smear the government and only a partisan fool would not see that the troops are also being smeared in the process. But as long as they can get some political traction on it the Liberals don't care.

However as bad as that is, the ultimate irony is that those "orders", if they were political at all, came from John McCallum and Bill Graham while the were the Ministers of Defense!

If there is an inquiry both of them will have to sit there and answer questions such as "Just what policies did YOU put in place to protect Afghan detainees?


The facts will come out and if you have not figured it out yet, they will not be good news for the Liberals. It will be fun to watch and I hope it does happen and is covered live on the CBC.

Anonymous said...

IMO. If Iggy doesn't can McCallum for this he must agree with the POS and has no choice but to put forward a non confidence vote to bring down a "Bad Government" when Parliament resumes in March.

Rob C

liberal supporter said...

McCallum: ..handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime.
Yes, the government knew. How could the troops know unless they read Colvin's reports. If the troops can read them, why can't Parliament?

The Liberals are playing political games trying to smear the government and only a partisan fool would not see that the troops are also being smeared in the process.
Only a partisan fool would back withholding the documents that could have settled this a long while back.

But as long as they can get some political traction on it the Liberals don't care.
Seems the CPC that is in smear mode here. Of course they are the ones most in need of traction, since they see the tipping point against them looming.

However as bad as that is, the ultimate irony is that those "orders", if they were political at all, came from John McCallum and Bill Graham while the were the Ministers of Defense!
Wow, you really are desperate. The transfer agreement was signed by the Liberals in good faith. They were mistaken. There were assessments of routine torture in Afghan prisons, which is why they sought an agreement with the Afghan government. It was on the CPC watch that the reports of torture of detainees turned over by us surfaced. It was the CPC that ignored the reports, then ordered that the reports stop, and are now refusing to release the uncensored reports.

If there is an inquiry both of them will have to sit there and answer questions such as "Just what policies did YOU put in place to protect Afghan detainees?
We're finally getting somewhere! You actually referred to an inquiry as a possibility.
And the more important question, "what did YOU do when you learned the policies weren't working".

The facts will come out and if you have not figured it out yet, they will not be good news for the Liberals. It will be fun to watch and I hope it does happen and is covered live on the CBC.
Then you must have no objection to releasing the uncensored documents and continuing the hearings. It's all they've been asking for all this time. Finally you are going to stop hiding and man up?

liberal supporter said...

IMO. If Iggy doesn't can McCallum for this he must agree with the POS and has no choice but to put forward a non confidence vote to bring down a "Bad Government" when Parliament resumes in March.
They are doing that anyway. The tipping point has been reached. Most Canadians have had enough of this dishonest, unethical, laissez torture government.

Ardvark said...

And the more important question, "what did YOU do when you learned the policies weren't working".

PM PM's Defense Minister Graham negotiated a transfer deal signed on Dec 18 2005. Colvin was in Afghanistan from April 2006 - Sept 2007. The Conservatives negotiated an improved deal Apr 2007 that everyone agrees solved any previous problems.

Yes, bring on an inquiry. Maybe Jean Chretien can answer why he misled Parliament about Afghan detainees in January 2002!

gimbol said...

Perhaps this is another reason why Harper wants to rejig the committee memebership. With a majority of conservatives on committees the right witnesses will be called.
Think Donolo has figured this out yet?

maryT said...

Is there any chance that there are some liberal mps who are shocked and disgusted at this attack on our troops. If they don't want to be tarred with the same brush of being against our brave and patriotic troops they better take a quick walk across the floor, or at least sit as independents. Especially if they are in came close to losing last election. Ujaal would not be accepted.

Jen said...

AA, take the time to read this and you will read who controls who. I also would not be surprise the 'who' also controls the national media.



http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3401canada_new_pol.html

Anonymous said...

I have not seen any evidence that detainees handed over to the Afghan prisons were tortured
Canadian military were operating under the Geneva rules for handling of prisoners

if they handed over prisoners with complete and full knowledge that they would be tortured then they could be tried for war crimes

I see no evidence of torture to the prisoners who were handed over to Afghan prisons by Canadian troops

military stopped prisoner transfers from time to time to prevent torture

the committee has heard testimony from several witnesses to confirm my trust that prisoners were not being deliberately handed over to torture at the hands of Afghan prison officials

the situation was not working under the Dec 2005 Liberal agreement a new agreement arranged in 2007 is working better although transfer is still stopped from time to time at present the agreement seems to work

fh

maryT said...

Jen, tried to go read that but get message, forbidden, server has no permission to access site.
Never had that happen before.

Anonymous said...

IGGY-”THE CONDUCT OF OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jT2XYl9W-5o6EWsxT6FPLTvdfEnw

Bruce

darcymeyers said...

The transfer agreement is pretty clear, even the 2005 version....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23511027/Detainee-Transfer-Agreement

liberal supporter said...

Is there any chance that there are some liberal mps who are shocked and disgusted at this attack on our troops. If they don't want to be tarred with the same brush of being against our brave and patriotic troops they better take a quick walk across the floor, or at least sit as independents.
If they are stupid enough to believe the CPC talking points that the troops are being attacked, you can have them. They would make great drones for you if they believe the CPC/BT spin.

Orville said...

This is a good post from SDA

What’s the difference between John McCallum and Foster Brooks?

When Foster Brooks did his drunken man routine in front of a television camera he was SOBER.

Ardvark said...

LS, if you honesty believe that this political smear job is not rubbing off onto our troops in even the smallest of ways, makes you a political hack or a fool.

Just the fact that the detainee issue and McCallum are all over the blogs, and the MSM, proves your theory wrong.

Liberal games.

Patrick Ross said...

Somehow, I find it pretty interesting that Libby is in here trying to accuse the sitting government of complicity in torture while he dodges questions about the Liberal Party's direct responsibility for this state of affairs.

How about it, Libby? Care to offer up your answer here?