So what happens if Iacobucci says release the documents without editing? Perhaps the Government assumes he will take so long to review that the matter will be moot? Still, turning matters over to an neutral third party can be dangerous: *remember Gomery?*
http://tinyurl.com/yd5ezwa
Ottawa is asking a former Supreme Court judge to make a ruling on a whether controversial classified documents relating to the Afghan detainee issue can be released to MPs.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says Frank Iacobucci will review the papers and decide how much of the documents can be released.
"In the case of injurious information, he will report to me on whether the information or a summary of it can be disclosed and report on the form of disclosure or any conditions on disclosure," Nicholson told the House of Commons.
Liberal justice critic Ujjal Dosanjh called the move a "half step."
"We don't know what (Iacobucci) will be able to do, when he will able to report, whether it will before the next election," he told reporters Friday.
The documents in question deal with the transfer of Taliban prisoners to Afghan jails, and whether Canada knew they were at risk of torture.
Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois members of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee demanded to see uncensored records last fall. The Tories released heavily-censored versions, citing secrecy laws.
During its investigation, the special commons committee looking into the issue heard from witnesses that the government received warnings about torture, but continued to hand over detainees to Afghan authorities.
The committee was dissolved when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament at the end of December.
The House of Commons voted to demand the release of all the documents in December, but the Tories did not follow through.
CTV's Roger Smith told CTV News Channel that today's move by "the government is an attempt to buy time for some sort of compromise."
9 comments:
Ujjal Dosanjh has already made up his mind.He has stated quite clearly and outside of parliament that Harper is guilty of war crimes.
So why then bother with all of this? Why don't the Liberals demand that Harper and Martin go directly to The Hague and start a war crimes trial?
What are the legal parameters under which Iacabucci is to operate? Under what authority does he get to make the call of what is or isn't appropriate for disclosure? Is he to operate within a vacuum or with guidance of counsel for the PMO or DND? Who watches the watchers?
Does he draw his jurisdiction from Parliament or simply from the prime minister and, if so, based on what exactly?
I have deep respect for the man but little for the process.
Mound, you make a good point. But if he is just considering national security I doubt he'll withhold much. Old intel is worth little
Mound, you make a good point. But if he is just considering national security I doubt he'll withhold much. Old intel is worth little
Does the Constitution not say that Parliament has the right to see those documents?
James, do you disbelieve Attaran when he says, forcefully I might add, that the Constitution already gives Parliament the right to view those unredacted documents?
So why bring in another party, a retired Judge with no legal powers at that?
Isn't it obvious that this is just a ruse to delay indefinitely (especially since the Libs appear afraid to trigger an election at this time)?
This will give Harper the excuse not to comply until such time the retired Judge writes his report to Nicholson (come on, they surely do not think that all Canadians, especially those who do not vote for them, are dumb, do they?
Parliament has passed a resolution -- it is binding -- it is not being followed -- the issue is now if and how Parliament wants to enforce. Perhaps it is prudent to see what the review will do but that does not change the fact there is a contempt of Parliament -- see my piece in this Wednesday's National Post
Parliament has passed a resolution -- it is binding -- it is not being followed -- the issue is now if and how Parliament wants to enforce. Perhaps it is prudent to see what the review will do but that does not change the fact there is a contempt of Parliament -- see my piece in this Wednesday's National Post
Harper would rather have an election now, and hope for a majority, than have to face any facts about the Afghan detainee issue, which can only hurt the government. The budget and throne speech do nothing to tie the government's hands.
Post a Comment