babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » How do the sunset clauses aid Air India file

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How do the sunset clauses aid Air India file
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 22 February 2007 06:35 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anyone understand how the Anti-Terrorism Act sunset clauses aid the RCMP investigation into the Air India file or the Air India Inquiry itself. As far as I know these clauses have never been used – so the question is how are they being used to further this file. Anyone?
From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 22 February 2007 08:57 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
An excellent question. It is my understanding that investigative hearings and preventative detention were justified in the aftermath of 9/11 as tools needed to prevent future terrorist attacks.

I am concerned that the families of the Air India victims are once again be used as pawns to further a political agenda this time by the Harper neo-Cons.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 February 2007 09:13 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The clauses in question provide for "preventive arrest" (allowing police to arrest suspects without warrant and detain them for several days without charge if authorities have reason to believe a terrorist act will be committed) and a kind of secret "investigative hearing" where individuals would have no right to remain silent.

They have never been used since being passed five years ago. There is no evidence that they would - or even could - be used by the Air India inquiry.

[ETA: Actually there is some RCMP stooge who has been primed to say that the inquiry wanted to use these clauses. Just because he says it, it doesn't make it so. And it also doesn't explain why the RCMP, CSIS and all the bungling Keystone Kops whose incompetence has made the Inquiry necessary didn't make use of these provisions to advance the ongoing investigation at any time in the last 5 years. It's as if they are only now discovering that the provisions exist. Yeah, right.]

The whole linking of the Inquiry to the sunset provisions is a sham and a fraud invented by Harper in order to smear the opposition.

Nobody seems to be asking the really pertinent question: Who leaked to the Vancouver Sun the name of a person (MP Bains's father-in-law) from a secret list of potential witnesses to be called by the Air India Inquiry? As Bob Rae said, "There's no reason for any of those lists to ever become public."

It could have been the Harper government itself that leaked it, just so that it could then refer to it in Parliament in order to smear the Liberals. This has got Karl Rove written all over it.

Government leaks to media have been used in this way for many years, particularly in the USA, where much of the disinformation about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" was first leaked to the New York Times, then clipped out and used as an "authoritative source" by White House spokesmen and by Colin Powell at the UN. Then there was the Valerie Plame scandal, very similar to the Harperite attempt to smear critics by exploiting the government's privileged access to secret information.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 February 2007 09:17 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Liberals have the judges, the academics, the journalists, the artists, the social activists. The Conservatives have Bay Street and what used to be called the little guy. It's not even a fair fight.
Ibbitson

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 February 2007 09:29 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
M. Spector is absolutely right that the CENTRAL question, unasked by the media to my knowledge, is WHO LEAKED THE SMEAR to the Vancouver Sun?

This is becoming endemic in Canada. A former BC Premier had tv cameras on his doorstep the day the Mounties executed a search warrant; eventually he was cleared of all wrongdoing, but lost his position anyway.

Then there was another leak which suggested Ralph Goodale as Minister had profited from pre-knowledge of the budget. Again, after the predictable political consequences of loss of power for the Liberals, he is found to be blameless.

The DUAL use of security information is everyone's nightmare. If the police are going to be allowed to collect information, we have to be CERTAIN they won't just use it to obtain the government they want.

That's what a police state is.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 22 February 2007 12:20 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
bump. I guess this should be cross linked with the Harper mis-steps in QP thread.

And once again I make a hopeless plea for clearer thread titles -- not this one.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 February 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was unaware that the "Harper missteps" thread had anything to do with this topic, because the title didn't offer a clue.

In fact, calling what Harper did a "misstep" is a serious misnomer. It was in fact a calculated smear.

I apologize to all who wonder why I posted here instead.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2007 04:38 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I was unaware that the "Harper missteps" thread had anything to do with this topic, because the title didn't offer a clue.

In fact, calling what Harper did a "misstep" is a serious misnomer. It was in fact a calculated smear.

I apologize to all who wonder why I posted here instead.


Oh puleeeze mspector, yoyur actions in this regard then are every bit as calculated as Harpers were.

Suggesting, you do not want to post on a thread because you do not like the title, is the personification of arrogance and IMV is also entirely disengenuous. It is your personal issues at play and nothing more and saying that you did not "know" what the content was because of the thread title stretches the bounds of truthfulness more than a bit.

There is nothing in the thread that can be considered light weight, and in actual fact neither is the title. The discussion on that thread entirely denotes the fact Harper made a calculated smear that has been in the works for awhile.

Perhaps you, and apparently siren, have failed to see what was being implied with the title. which is:

Harper in his mechinations, of walking in lock step with his masters, makes a serious misstep with Canadians.

Oh, most certainly I could've made a slanted sensationalist title that said something like; "Harper conducts act of treason and debases QP". And then the discussion would've have turned in a muck rake about the use of "treason". Instead of its evolving into a thread exposing the full parameters of what he has done, why he has done it, its ramifactions, and why Canadians should be acting upon it.

But hey, feel free to continue on with your intellectual superiority complex, and mental masterbation of stating you did not post because the thread title was not applicable,so you did not know. because after all nothing EVER appears in TAT showing what is going on in the thread!

Tell you what, how about you lobby babble for setting up a title screening process. This would ensure the title meets the expected criteria of those, who want to feel that their intellectual superiority allows them to nitpick about titles,
as opposed to discussing the actual content.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 22 February 2007 04:41 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
While who leaked the smear on Bain's father-in-law is an important question, the topic of this thread is on how the sunset clauses due to expire next week aid the police investigation into Air India.

I think the onus is on the Harper Conservatives to answer this central question. The onus is not on those of us who argue that these clauses should be allowed to expire.

Another aspect that has received scant mention in the media is that one individual was charged and convicted of constructing the bomb that blew up Air India 182. Two other individuals were charged with the bombing itself but acquitted after one of the lengthiest and most expensive criminal trials in Canadian history. The Crown chose NOT to appeal this acquittal.

Even if - and it's a huge if - an "investigative hearing" turned up stronger evidence against the two individuals (Malik and Bagri) most closely tied to the bombing, they couldn't be charged again without violating the double jeopardy provision (Section 11(h) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have all the sympathy in the world for the Air India families. But in this instance they seem to being used as political pawns by the Harper Conservatives.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 22 February 2007 04:46 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Sheesh remind, your post is over the top. M Spector didn't even start this thread, he only posted on it.

I think both issues are important - and while not entirely unrelated - they are different enough to warrant two different thread topics.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 22 February 2007 04:58 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
While who leaked the smear on Bain's father-in-law is an important question, the topic of this thread is on how the sunset clauses due to expire next week aid the police investigation into Air India.

I think the onus is on the Harper Conservatives to answer this central question. The onus is not on those of us who argue that these clauses should be allowed to expire.


I think that in answer to your question, the Harperites would respond that people who did not testify in the last round of enquiry could be compelled to testify in this one.

Maggie's Farmboy posted this link in the other thread on this:

quote:

CBC Tuesday, March 29, 2005

..............
But Satnam Reyat, who refused to testify at the trial after receiving threats so serious that, at one point, the RCMP had to remove her from her home and take her to a secret location, has named Bagri and Malik as co-conspirators.

Her story emerges from hitherto secret documents filed at Vancouver's courthouse by the the RCMP in a bid to question Satnam Reyat in an investigative hearing under Canada's new anti-terrorism law.

....................

However, it makes little difference whether Satnam Reyat refused to testify because of money or threats. The RCMP say they are considering pressing on with investigative hearings under the Anti-terrorism Act in the hope of getting new evidence and she might not be the only one called.

But the verdict is in and the judge never heard the story that might have been told by the bombmaker's wife.


What I would like to know is exactly what "compel to testify" really means. A little waterboarding, anyone?

Oh, and remind... mmmmmm, mental masturbation. I didn't realize you were the author of that thread, sorry, but it is a bit of an unclear title.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 February 2007 05:04 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Suggesting, you do not want to post on a thread because you do not like the title, is the personification of arrogance and IMV is also entirely disengenuous. It is your personal issues at play and nothing more and saying that you did not "know" what the content was because of the thread title stretches the bounds of truthfulness more than a bit.
Your paranoia is exceeded only by your utter detachment from reality.

I never read the thread that you so unhelpfully titled before I posted in this thread. It was only after siren (above) helpfully linked to the other thread that I was even aware of its contents. I even went to the extent of apologizing for the thread proliferation once I found out.

That of course didn't stop you from getting on your high horse and galloping off in all directions. You're pathetic.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 February 2007 05:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Okay, well, I'm closing this now.

Whoever started the other thread (I haven't clicked on it yet), could you change the thread title to something more revealing as to its content since I'm closing this one? "Harper missteps" really isn't all that revealing. Thanks.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 February 2007 05:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, actually, I'm opening this again, since I think, after having clicked on the other thread, that the topics are different enough to warrant separate threads.

Please let this be the end of the argument between Spector and remind, though. You've both got your licks in, and that's good enough.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2007 05:52 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 February 2007 06:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh for Jebus' sake. ENOUGH already.

[Edited because I meant to write "Jebus" instead of "Jesus".]

Seriously, I know what it's like to get all pissed off and adrenaline flowing and into a pissing match. I've done it enough times myself. But it's boring for everyone else to watch. Let's get back on topic.

[ 22 February 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 22 February 2007 06:48 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Michelle for making the right call to re-open this thread.

Getting back on-topic and in response to Siren's post above:

A witness can be compelled to testify in a criminal trial. It's called a subpeona and they are issued all the time.

"Investigative hearings" have to do with police investigations, not criminal trials so I think the CBC story is beside the point.

And even if - and I repeat if - the police are able to get stronger evidence against Bagri and Malik they wouldn't be able to be charged again because of double jeopardy.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 22 February 2007 07:50 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh for Jebus' sake. ENOUGH already.

[Edited because I meant to write "Jebus" instead of "Jesus".]

Seriously, I know what it's like to get all pissed off and adrenaline flowing and into a pissing match. I've done it enough times myself. But it's boring for everyone else to watch. Let's get back on topic.


Sorry michelle, was not intentional continuing past your warning, I was composing the post while you were posting and did not see your post until now.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 22 February 2007 08:00 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
A witness can be compelled to testify in a criminal trial. It's called a subpeona and they are issued all the time.

"Investigative hearings" have to do with police investigations, not criminal trials so I think the CBC story is beside the point.


OK. But is there anywhere in these laws or in the newer (post 2001) anti-terrorism laws where the definition of "compel" is spelled out?


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 February 2007 08:54 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Compel" isn't defined. Legal compulsion is effected by a judge's order; if you disobey the order you go to jail for contempt.

The sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act that are subject to the sunset clause are 83.28, 83.29, and 83.3. Text is here.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 February 2007 09:15 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Nobody seems to be asking the really pertinent question: Who leaked to the Vancouver Sun the name of a person (MP Bains's father-in-law) from a secret list of potential witnesses to be called by the Air India Inquiry?
So far only Rick Salutin has picked up on this:
quote:
What the PM told [his "national security advisor"] last Monday was to look into the imminent collapse of an inquiry into the 1985 Air-India bombing. The judge in charge said he might shut it down since security forces, like the RCMP, won't provide documents he needs.

That wouldn't look good for them or the government. Suddenly, Wednesday, the Vancouver Sun said it had “learned” the RCMP wanted to question the father-in-law of a Liberal MP about the bombing but might not be able to, since Liberals are going to vote against extending an anti-terror law that lets them force people to testify. It got the security guys and government off the hook while implying the Liberals were out to protect their own.

Hmm, sound familiar? Ah yes — an RCMP letter leaked during the last election that revealed they were investigating Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale. It altered the campaign decisively and was responsible for Stephen Harper being PM today. (That's as close to an objective fact as you get in political analysis.)

Now we have another leak of RCMP information (Well, how do you think the Sun “learned” about a secret RCMP witness list?) again. The PM waves the story in Question Period, says Liberals are self-serving softies on terror; they go berserk, etc. Call me Chicken Little, but I find these mutually beneficial leaks that help police and politicians a tad troubling — and not in this case alone.


Read the whole column - it's quite good.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 08:00 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link to the column - it really was interesting. He put into words what I've been thinking and feeling for the past few months but were crystalized with that convenient leak to the Vancouver Sun.

The conservatives have been seeking like minds in the government and using their supposed neutrality to launch stealth poitical attacks.

Sheila Fraser's vaunted integrity took a real hit and it explains why she looked so uncomfortable explaining (or not explaining) the firing.

The column was a real pulling back of the curtains - props to Rick for doing it.


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 09:36 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been thinking about siren's complaint about my thread title. I would like to be clearer or more engaging in my choice so I ask her if she could give me an example of what she would suggest. I'm not being critical of her complaint just looking for some freindly pointers.
From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 25 February 2007 09:45 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That column should be mass distributed and read on the airwaves.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 25 February 2007 09:57 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I distrust the RCMP as much, actually a lot more, than the next person. But Rick Salutin's piece (as often happens) is factually wrong:

1) The RCMP didn't "leak" information to the NDP during last year's campaign. They sent an open and very public letter declaring that they were conducting an investigation. I'd argue that the police should not have confirmed or denied that they were investigating - none of the other investigating agencies approached by the NDP did to my knowledge - but to call it a "leak" is just inaccurate.

2) The RCMP didn't leak anything to the Sun reporter. At least that's what the Sun reporter claims. You can read her comments here. To quote:

quote:
I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial... The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant.
Salutin, I find, does more harm then good with his lazy ramblings. I don't know how or when he became the official "leftie" at the Globe but he just phones it in all the time with the laziest crap. If he got of his ass and left the confines of Dooney's more often he might be a little more useful.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 25 February 2007 10:30 AM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Mercy for setting the record straight on point 1.

On point 2, Bolan's claim that she learned Saini was Bains' father-in-law through sources in the Sikh community seems credible. However, it doesn't explain how she learned that Saini was on the RCMP's "investigative hearings" list. Without that latter piece of information, the simple fact that Bains and Saini were related would have been a non-story.

To get back to the central point. Nothing in Kim Bolan's story or her further explanations leads me to change my view that "investigative hearings" will be of any use to solving either Air India or the Hayer murder. The fact that a person could end up on such a list and then have their identity leaked to the news media by sources unknown only heightens my concern.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 February 2007 11:15 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
Thanks Mercy for setting the record straight on point 1.
Give me a break. Setting the record straight?

It was a leak. The fact that it was a bold, publicly stated revelation by the RCMP of matters that should have been confidential doesn't make it any less a politically-motivated leak.

As for Kim Bolan's explanation for her article, I'm not buying it for a minute.

In the first place, since when does a reputable journalist discuss her sources of information? If she told us the info came from the RCMP, they'd never tell her anything again.

In the second place, if her story about Saini being on the RCMP witness list was pure speculation on her part, on the basis of asking herself (as she claims) "who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings?" then why did she write categorically in the article:

quote:
The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.
Does that sound to you like the mere speculations of a reporter who sat through the Air India inquiry for 19 months and had plenty of time to cultivate contacts with the RCMP, CSIS, the Crown, and everybody else?

And would a reputable reporter print such a categorical statement (if based on speculation) without first calling the RCMP to give them an opportnity to confirm or deny?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 11:35 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mercy: Salutin, I find, does more harm then good with his lazy ramblings. I don't know how or when he became the official "leftie" at the Globe but he just phones it in all the time with the laziest crap. If he got of his ass and left the confines of Dooney's more often he might be a little more useful.

More harm than the police interfering in the political process? The only harm I see is to the conservative's plans to use supposedly neutral government officers to launch timely political attacks - and I do mean timely.

You must know Rick personally to indulge in such a spiteful personal attack on him. If you are so superior to him why are your points so lazy and weak?

Point one you made to attack him was that it was not a leak but a public declaration. While the word "leak" was not an accurate description of the transaction it did convey the point about political interference.

If Rick's choice was innaccurate your's is not much better because the letter you talk about was not an open and public letter to citizens at large but one sent to Libby.

Your second point was even weaker - John K's and M. Spector ripostes point that out sufficiently. In the chain of thought on this issue you are the weakest if not laziest link.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 25 February 2007 11:54 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I argue that Salutin does more harm then good because he doesn't do much in the way of work and thereby undermines his own arguments.

Any journalist worth their salt would have called Kim Bolan to get her side of the story before declaring that she'd recieved a leak. If he'd done that and still found her story wanting he could have said so. Salutin, it seems, just drew some conclusions while sipping his cappucino.

Any journalist worth their salt would have at least checked the record and confirmed that there was no "leak" about the RCMP investigation. To be clear the letter (which went to Judy Wasylycia-Leis not Libby Davis) was followed by several public declarations. They're still online. You can read them here

And, M. Spector, there is a vastly diffrent connoation between the words "leak" and "announce". The former converys something clandestine and sleazy and, no doubt, Salutin opted to use it because that's what he felt like using at the time. That's fine if you're writing fiction but I expect journalism (regardless of whether it has a bias I like or a bias I don't) to be honest and accurate.

I don't know Salutin personally - just as I'm sure the people here attacking Stephen Harper don't know him personally. I do think, however, that when people on the Left get lazy with their facts it undermines their arguments. This happens to be an argument that I, by and large, agree with. The RCMP - from the torture of Maher Arar to the framing of Glen Clark - has a lot to answer for. But when you build you argument on crappy half true factoids you lose in the long run.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 25 February 2007 11:55 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your mistake: he's not a journalist.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 11:58 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One more thought on Rick's choice of the word leak. While the RCMP did not leak it to the press in a manor of speaking they leaked it to Libby through the letter who then published it in time to affect the course of the election. So Rick's characterization of the transaction as a leak is far from being weak but is quite reasonable and accurate.
From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 12:00 PM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoops i apologize to Libby.
From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 12:11 PM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mercy: But when you build you argument on crappy half true factoids you lose in the long run.

Are you calling yourself a loser or just everone else or how about just me. All I can tell you is that your reviling of Rick's character reveals very clearly the deeper flaws in yours.


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 25 February 2007 12:13 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
Your mistake: he's not a journalist.
Agreed. Now if we could just get journals to stop printing his stuff we'd be getting somewhere.

From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 25 February 2007 12:27 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
Any journalist worth their salt would have called Kim Bolan to get her side of the story before declaring that she'd recieved a leak.
Any journalist worth their salt would not insult another journalist by asking her to disclose her sources.
quote:
And, M. Spector, there is a vastly diffrent connoation between the words "leak" and "announce".
Doesn't make it any less sleazy, which is the actual point. And Salutin's point is no less valid, concerning the "mutually beneficial" relationship between the government and the RCMP based on timely leaks and announcements of otherwise confidential information.

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 25 February 2007 03:19 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
1) The RCMP didn't "leak" information to the NDP during last year's campaign. They sent an open and very public letter declaring that they were conducting an investigation. I'd argue that the police should not have confirmed or denied that they were investigating - none of the other investigating agencies approached by the NDP did to my knowledge - but to call it a "leak" is just inaccurate.


Leak is the correct term, they faxed the letter, to an NDP MP's empty office. They got no response. They made a call then announcing there was a letter about their investigations.

They did NOT come straight out and have a press conference. That happened after it was broken in the news.

1. When have the RCMP ever faxed a MP's office, to say we are investigating another MP? Say nothing of phoning 2 weeks later to check and see if it was received.

2. When have the RCMP held a press conference noting that there were investigations going to go on about further criminal activities on the parts of elected officials, just prior to an election?

Leak = to give out (information) surreptitiously

ETA: Mercy's definition of very open and very public seem to be the issue here, as a letter going to 1 MP is not very open nor very public, and why was just 1 MP sent it BTW?

[ 25 February 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 25 February 2007 04:24 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was sent to her and her alone, presumably, because she was the one who wrote them and asked them to investigate. Do you think you should have got a letter as well?

I think the RCMP should have kept their mouths shut and I agree there may have been other agendas at work but dontcha think it's a little paranoid to assume that there was something nefarious about the fact they confirmed the investigation to the person who complained about it? Especially since they put out a press release immediately afterwards?


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 25 February 2007 11:10 PM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mercy:Salutin, I find, does more harm then good with his lazy ramblings. I don't know how or when he became the official "leftie" at the Globe but he just phones it in all the time with the laziest crap. If he got of his ass and left the confines of Dooney's more often he might be a little more useful.

You say you don't know him but you know that he phones stuff in not faxes or emails or uploads or that he even goes into the G&M offices. Where did you get your information if you don't know him. Did you make it up? I suspect you did.

Now you seem to know that he spends all his time at a place called Dooney's how did you come by that information if you don't know him?

Lies, half truths, innuendoes, whatever it takes to smear someone when they get too close to the truth that must irk your agenda big time for you to resort to such tactics.

I'm beginning to wonder what your agenda really is - I'm sure it's not to nobly protect the truth for all judging by your lack of it but to serve a political agenda which is all well and good if you come clean about it.

I'm beginning to get an idea of what it is.


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 26 February 2007 04:45 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Then there was another leak which suggested Ralph Goodale as Minister had profited from pre-knowledge of the budget. Again, after the predictable political consequences of loss of power for the Liberals, he is found to be blameless.

I recall a story about an investigation that someone in the Finance department had leaked information about tax changes for income trusts. Subsequently, someone has been charged for those (alleged) leaks. Ministerial responsibility means that Goodale is far from "blameless" for what happened -- he was responsible for the department at the time of the (alleged) illegal leaks.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 26 February 2007 04:49 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I apologize for starting all this thread drift.

To clarify:

"Phone it in" is a phrase. It means, "Perform an act in a perfunctory, uncommitted fashion, as if it didn't matter"

Dooney's is a cafe in Toronto's swish Annex district. Salutin writes about it often. I'm not stalking him.

And, no, I don't think preserving the anti-terror legislation will aid the Air India file.

EDITED TO ADD: And "leak" is simply not the accurate term. The RCMP announced they were conducting an investigation. Is that wholly improper? Hell yes. But that doesn't make it a leak. Dictionary definitions include:

quote:
1 a : to enter or escape through an opening usually by a fault or mistake b : to let a substance or light in or out through an opening
2 a : to become known despite efforts at concealment b : to be the source of an information leak
transitive verb
1 : to permit to enter or escape through or as if through a leak
2 : to give out (information) surreptitiously
Was anything given out surreptitiously? No. Was anyone attempting to conceal that which was known? No.

You know folks, we can build a case against the RCMP without making shit up.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: Mercy ]


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 26 February 2007 04:51 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
Subsequently, someone has been charged for those (alleged) leaks.
Nobody's been charged for any "leaks".

The man who was charged is alleged to have profited personally from insider information - information that he was necessarily privy to because of his job. There has been no suggestion that he leaked to anyone else. If he did, the leakee(s) would be criminally liable if they acted on the information, and would have been charged as well. They haven't.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 26 February 2007 09:44 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mercy: You know folks, we can build a case against the RCMP without making shit up.

You know Mercy, you can build a case against Rick Salutin without making shit up or at least you could try. I thank you for your link to that well written column about Rick.

I'll take a few quotes from it but I recommend that you really read the whole of it.

quote:
Now 59 and largely in a class of his own, Salutin is read and respected by critics who span the range of ideology. Left-wing author and journalist Linda McQuaig says, "He challenges those assumptions that form our lives, in areas of economics, politics, and culture." And though he's not the only writer who does this, in McQuaig's opinion, "He does it particularly well."


quote:
Meanwhile, former Toronto Sun editor Peter Worthington says, "I tease him and call him the 'establishment radical.'" Even when his opponents think he is wrong—and some think he is never right—they never fail to read him because he engages from a unique perspective.

quote:
But that's Salutin: he's tenacious. When something bothers him, he thinks and reads and writes about it until he's satisfied. And he's hardly ever satisfied.

As you can see, he is far from lazy or incompetent or in some sort of stupor at Dooney's.

And to refute your Harping weasel attack on his use of the term “leak”, I’ll simply quote from your definition of leak:

quote:
1 a : to enter or escape through an opening usually by a fault or mistake b : to let a substance or light in or out through an opening.

The fault was the letter to Judy (sorry Libby) and the substance was the investigation so as I said before his use of the term leak was reasonable and accurate as your own definition clearly shows.

The only one making up shit around here is you. Which again brings me to the question of why. Just like the RCMP's timely interventions benefited Harper, I think your over heated attempted character assassination of Rick Salutin served much the same purpose however obliquely.

You'll be critical of the RCMP but try to sever or ignore any causal connection with Harper even in the face of the overwhelming fact that it is Harper who has benefited from their timely interventions.

In any event you really don't have much credibility which accounts for the sucking sound I'm hearing.


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 26 February 2007 09:58 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
P.S.

quote:
Mercy: I apologize for starting all this thread drift.

The only thing you need to apologize for is for making up shit to smear someone to aid your political agenda.


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 26 February 2007 03:00 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by intelligent universe:
I've been thinking about siren's complaint about my thread title. I would like to be clearer or more engaging in my choice so I ask her if she could give me an example of what she would suggest. I'm not being critical of her complaint just looking for some freindly pointers.

S'all a misunderstanding. In making a plea for clearer thread titles I was critiquing another title that has been remedied by the author. When I wrote "not this one" I was referring to your title not being confusing.

Confused?

In fact your title is a model of clarity.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 26 February 2007 03:56 PM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks. All I could think of was to add a "the" and a question mark.
For example:
How do the sunset clauses aid the Air India file?

I'm relatively new here and this is the first thread I ever started so I was a little worried about my first step forward.

Thanks for clearing it up.

[ 26 February 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 27 February 2007 07:10 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Not exactly a surprise but Parliament voted 159-124 to not extend the "investigative hearings" and "preventative arrest" provisions of the Criminal Code.

But not before the spectacle of the Harper Conservatives dragging some family members of 9/11 victims before the cameras for a last minute photo-op. Disgusting.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 February 2007 08:06 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John K:
But not before the spectacle of the Harper Conservatives dragging some family members of 9/11 victims before the cameras for a last minute photo-op. Disgusting.

The G&M ended their cover story on the vote with this:

quote:

Away from Parliament Hill, families of Canadians killed in the Sept. 11 attacks had called on parliament to approve the extensions.

Maureen Basnicki, whose husband, Ken, was one of 24 Canadians killed in Manhattan's twin towers 5½ years ago, said the MPs would seriously diminish Canada's capacity to fight terrorism if they voted down the extended time-frame.


Actually, they were in Parliament for the vote and Basnicki was interviewed on Mike Duffy. She repeated the conservative line that "they weren't used just means they weren't abused". She decried the partisanship but let herself be used for partisan purposes. There is nothing Harper will not politicize.

I am sorry for Ms. Basnicki's loss. But it does not render her an expert in weighing the balance between legislation and civil liberties.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 27 February 2007 08:41 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
I am sorry for Ms. Basnicki's loss. But it does not render her an expert in weighing the balance between legislation and civil liberties.

Agreed, I feel her loss and can value her heightened fear and grief, but those emotions of hers have no bearing upon my rights and freedoms.

This is not a criminal trial with a victim's impact statement being required for sentencing appeals.

Her personal experiences, actually preclude her from rendering an opinion on such a serious matter. The heightened sensitivity leading to applied bias, based upon strong emotions has no business delving into the rights of others.

Nor do her emotions give her the required knowledge, skills or insight into lawful personal liberties and freedoms.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 28 February 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, clearly, is she had disagreed with the extension it would have been immoral for the NDP to invite her to the final vote?

Would you argue that Cindy Sheehan is too "emotionally involved" to comment on the Iraq War?


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 February 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
nice strawman to deflect the topic away from facts, with hypotheticals!
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 28 February 2007 11:58 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They do realize that Canada hasn't been targetted by "terrorists" since the days of the FLQ mailbox bombs, right?

Maybe the 911 widows or widowers or orphans should concentrate their lobbying more towards high rise safety and fire codes than nonsense like Harper's bogeymen.

The fact that Canadians died on 911 is irrelevant to that vile piece of legislation anymore than the far greater number of random traffic deaths since.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 28 February 2007 12:24 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
nice strawman to deflect the topic away from facts, with hypotheticals!
Here's a non-hypothetical reformulation.

It is boneheaded and dumb and offensive to argue that a person is too "sensitive" and "emotional" to have an opinion.

And I say that as someone who agrees with your position.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 February 2007 12:54 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
Here's a non-hypothetical reformulation.

It is boneheaded and dumb and offensive to argue that a person is too "sensitive" and "emotional" to have an opinion.

And I say that as someone who agrees with your position.


No one said they were not entitled to have an "personal" opinion, as a matter of fact. Including me.

It was very specifically applied to their opinion not have anything to do with deciding any actions taken in regards to Canadians individual rights and freedoms.

Good try at twisting things said. And fuck off with your: "boneheaded and dumb and offensive" personal denigration commentary.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 28 February 2007 01:29 PM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
remind, I think your personal experiences actually preclude you from rendering an opinion on such a serious matter. The heightened sensitivity is leading to applied bias, based upon strong emotions.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 28 February 2007 02:31 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
remind, I think your personal experiences actually preclude you from rendering an opinion on such a serious matter. The heightened sensitivity is leading to applied bias, based upon strong emotions.

Mercy, I think your personal experiences actually preclude you from rendering an opinion on such a serious matter. The heightened sensitivity is leading to applied bias, based upon strong emotions. Or you would not have levelled a personal attack upon me and then proceeded to further your nasty commentary.

Trying to defend Harper's crass political use of these people, for an emotive plea to Canadians, by attacking me is a dismal failure on your part.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 February 2007 02:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, let's move on. Mercy, please refrain from personal attacks. intelligent universe, you too. Thanks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 28 February 2007 04:25 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, clearly, is she had disagreed with the extension it would have been immoral for the NDP to invite her to the final vote?

I remain skeptical that some family members of 9/11 victims would spontaneously of their own accord arrive on Parliament Hill for a last minute lobby of MPs on the anti-terror provisions, followed by a media conference in the press theatre. Just as I am skeptical that the family members of Air India victims did the same last week.

I'm not saying that opposition parties don't try to do the same thing, though they have considerably less resources than the government does to make it appear non-orchestrated.

There's nothing wrong with calling the Harper Conservatives on what I strongly suspect were staged photo-ops.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853

posted 01 March 2007 05:11 AM      Profile for Mercy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only point I was trying to make is that it's dangerous to argue that people personally affected by violence shouldn't comment on it.

It's an argument I've seen used against anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan.

Furthermore, people who do it look really insensitive.


From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 01 March 2007 06:23 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My neighbours, in fact, childhood friends, were blown up by the Air India disaster.

What I find happening now quite disheartening. I hate it when politicians use people as pawns in their political calculations.

But it was also an open secret at the time that Canada and the UK looked the other way when money was flowing to the Khalistanis who were tacitly supported by Ronald Reagan in his bid to destabilize Soviet-friendly regimes like Indira Gandhi's India.

What do the CSIS tapes reveal?


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 March 2007 08:19 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, ceti!

I've missed you around here. Stick around.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
intelligent universe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11299

posted 05 March 2007 08:47 AM      Profile for intelligent universe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another RCMP political intervention has occurred - this time from the head of the B.C. RCMP. repeating the complaint that they have been preparing for two and a half years to ask some questions of witnesses.

This time Terry Milewski from the CBC said the witnesses were willing but scared to testify implying that somehow the act would provide the protection they needed to facilitate their testimony.

I'm at a loss as to how the Act could protect them better than an already available witness protection program.

The bottom line, however, is that it is yet another political intervention by the RCMP slamming the opposition.

The RCMP (with CSIS) bungled Air India for two decades and it appears are well on course to take another decade to continue their bungling.

Meanwhile they are doing their best to hide their bungling from the Air India inquiry and with announcements like this deflect attention from their failure.

You'll notice how quiet and measured Harper is about how the Air India Inquiry is being stymied by government officials to keep the real truth from the light of day. No bungling there.

[ 05 March 2007: Message edited by: intelligent universe ]


From: Drayton Valley | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca