![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Now we allow a retired Mulroney- appointed Supremee to decide whether or not to release documents regarding the Afghan detainee issue. I guess my lawyer made me do it isn’t really working for him anymore.
It would appear that Rob Nicholson is going to allow retired Justice, now big corporate lawyer (surprise! surprise! Friend of St-Stevie’s: what other type of law would he be practising?) to decide on the release of un redacted documents and how many of them can be released.
Just one question, why does a corporate lawyer decide the release of documents and how many? Why isn’t it, say…a lawyer who specializes in international laws? Because the latter is not a friend, that’s why.
Given that Iacobucci was a Mulroney appointee: does this play in St-Stevie’s favor, or not, given Stephie’s fallout with Mulroney?
There are some who call Nicholson’s decision to pawn the decision off Iacobucci a small step in the right direction, but CTV’s Roger Smith called this move the government’s attempt to buy time in order to come up with a compromise. Oh yeah, of course, the compromise. That sounds funny as the whole concept of compromise doesn’t exist in St-Stevie’s modus operendi.
So what is this all about?
The usual St-Stevie stand-by of blaming the liberals for the start of this whole torturegate debacle didn’t work. They voted along with the N.D.P. in favor of an investigation, going back to 2001; from the time the war first started under the Chretien government, thus proving the Liberals are not that concerned about whatever their role may or may not have been.
St-Stevie then prorogues parliament, thus, disolving the committees formed to investigate the Afghan detainee issue. That, however, didn’t work neither as one of the first things the opposition parties demanded at the first Question Period back.
Then, there’s the lawyers won’t let me talk about this.
Now, it is before Frank Iacobucci. Besides the fact that he practises corporate law since retiring from the bench, thus that whole corporate = con friendly.
No, there is more to it than that. It would seem that when Iaccobucci was still on the bench in the 90′s, he did sign onto Justice Maclachlan’s majority opinion regarding the case of CBC v The Assembly of Nova Scotia, a case where the Nova Scotia Legislature refused to allow cameras in the assembly. In this case, the CBC lost; the justices ruled that the N.S. legislature could ban cameras. More on that case here.
Given that little piece of Iacobucci the corporate lawyer’s history as a supreme court justice, I have a feeling that we’re never going to see or hear the unredacted story. Basically, St-Stevie and the Harpercons want to hear that it’s ok to blatantly ignore what was voted on in the House of Commons.
Now the Harpercons and their cheerleaders will all yuck it up in celebration. I only wish they can be honest is all. I mean, if they believe in their hearts that their ‘heroes’ (Harpercons; not troops) are innocent of any wrong doing and want to proove this to us ‘lefty loonies’ , then why continue to vehemently defend St-Stevie’s right to hide? Why not, instead, insist on St-Stevie producing the unredacted documents. If as they say, there is nothing to read, then I say get them to prove it by opening the documents.
Or, is it because they are such Islamomophobes that they think the idea of ‘torturing little brown people is fun’ (Wendy Girl on the Wrong Sullivan saying that while giggling and flirting with Andrew Lawton on one of her last radio shows) and thus, we should leave the Harpercons alone so this ‘fun’ can continue? Repulsive idea, I know, but if we were to force the truth out of a real neo-con Islamaphobe, I am sure that would be it, pure and simple.
Playing politics or not; the fact is, an investigation was voted upon in the House of Commons prior to prorogation. Rightfully so, whether we like these detainees or not, most haven’t passed through a court of law. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If any lawyers are out there reading this, perhaps you can answer that question via email or comments.
And, a goody for Blathering Blatchford, Blogging Tory, Alberta Girl and other blithering idiots like her, there is a pesky piece of international law known as the Geneva Convention. Unlike that Copenhagen agreement, the Geneva Convention is actually binding.
Harpercons like Nicholson love to talk that tough on crime talk. Well, how’s about talk on a possible international crime? Wouldn’t facing up to this set the real example for a law abiding Canada? What’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander?
And a question for the insufferable ass, Beryl Wajsman who replaced Redneck Ryan Doyle this week on CJAD (just my luck; my computer had to go down earlier; missed Michael Williams doing the TO end); how do you know it’s only one detainee, as you mused over the radio this fine evening? An investigation hasn’t begun. This is what the opposition is working on.
So, if Nicholson carefully picked Iacobucci because the Harpercons can pretty much count on him to rule in their favor, why did they go to all the trouble of blaming the Liberals and proroguing parliament? It seems to me he could have skipped all those steps and gone right to Iacobucci.
Perhaps the answer is obvious: Iacobucci is retired from the bench; he is in the private sector now, practising corporate law. Would anything he ruled on be even binding or legally valid? Again, if there are lawyers (or law students seasoned on this) reading this, please share.
Hands up if you’re starting to lose hope that we’ll ever get to the bottom of torturegate?
“Iacobucci is retired from the bench; he is in the private sector now, practising corporate law. Would anything he ruled on be even binding or legally valid?”
I’m answering this via the words my children’s father, who is a Law Professor in Canada. He says: “No. Any ruling Iocabucci makes is simply a private legal opinion given to the government. It has absolutely no binding effect anywhere and is not legally valid unless a court should rule it to be so. It is a very sleazy tactic by the Conservative governement to look like they are doing something, when in actual fact, they are doing absolutely nothing except buying time & hoping people fall for this “distraction”.
ck Reply:
March 6th, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Thanks for that, CanNurse. As for your kids’ father, thank him for me. He may well have helped my blood pressure drop a few points this evening.
Sleazy St-Stevie, a nice ring to that.
CanNurse’s source is absolutely correct. But it appears that the real smoking gun documents have already been leaked and may be floating about in the public domain. Ottawa U law professor Amir Attaran may have thrown a wrench in the gears. He claims to have read the unredacted documents (where, how, when?) and maintains they unequivocally show that Canadians handed over detainees to Afghan torturers specifically for ‘enhanced interrogation’ to garner intelligence. The documents Attaran claims to have personally reviewed suggest not only did it happen but it was recorded and that, in turn, was communicated through channels to Kabul and onward to Ottawa.
Wouldn’t you love to know how Attaran got to review these docs? I’m sure he didn’t find them in a misplaced file folder on the seat of an OC Transpo bus. They were almost certainly leaked – quite deliberately – which means the Harper government has lost control of them. Attaran appears to have been firing a shot across Iacabucci’s bow. If he doesn’t release these documents they’ll find their way into the public anyway. Oopsie.
Wonder if the good professor has had a sit down with the RCMP yet? Harper doesn’t like upstarts telling the truth he doesn’t want the public to hear, does he?