Thursday, March 28, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
House of Commons Night in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee
RON MACLEAN
Welcome to House of Commons Night in Canada. I'm Ron Maclean here with Don Cherry. Grapes, we've neglected the House of Commons what with the shortened season and frantic hockey schedule...
DON CHERRY
Tell me about it. I was worried I might have a wardrobe malfunction.
RON MACLEAN
We've seen your wardrobe when it's 100% - a malfunction is unimaginable.
DON CHERRY
You're a little short of imagination. Just think of a sealskin suit dyed the wrong colour.
RON MACLEAN
I can't...
DON CHERRY
Like I said...
RON MACLEAN
So let's turn to the House of Commons that we've neglected this season...
DON CHERRY
I know. I feel bad but hey...we can't be everywhere.
RON MACLEAN
But now an interesting development has come up in the House of Commons where a Conservative backbencher has appealed to the Speaker to have his Private Member's Motion heard despite opposition from the House Leader...
DON CHERRY
You're talking about Mark Warawa and Motion 408 regarding sex selection in termination of pregnancy...
RON MACLEAN
Yes, of course. What's your take?
DON CHERRY
I don't want to get into the whole abortion thing...
RON MACLEAN
I'm relieved to hear it..
DON CHERRY
...but the question has been asked, is a Parliamentary party playing a team sport...
RON MACLEAN
And your answer?
DON CHERRY
No.
RON MACLEAN
So maybe we should back up and give our viewers a little of the history.
DON CHERRY
OK, so Warawa has proposed a motion under Standing Order 31...
RON MACLEAN
What's a Standing Order?
DON CHERRY
It's like the Official Rules. Private Members have the right to propose motions that are not necessarily government business. That is their right. So Warawa proposed a motion that was then referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee...
RON MACLEAN
...again, short form is PROC...
DON CHERRY
...to determine whether or not the motion is "voteable". The motion has to be cleared by this committee.
RON MACLEAN
And how does it decide?
DON CHERRY
OK there are tests, and the Committee is advised by an independent authority from the Library of Canada, whether or not the motion passes those tests...
RON MACLEAN
Which are?
DON CHERRY
There are three...
RON MACLEAN
"Fear, Surprise, and Ruthless Efficiency"?
DON CHERRY
What are you talking about?
RON MACLEAN
I have no idea. Please continue.
DON CHERRY
Yeah well according to Brent Rathgeber, the committee's independent advisor said:
“it is within federal jurisdiction. It does not offend the Constitution and there’s no similar motion currently on the Order Paper.” In other words, the motion is in the view of the non-partisan analyst entirely voteable.
RON MACLEAN
Which means the motion is "voteable"?
DON CHERRY
Exactly.
RON MACLEAN
So what happened?
DON CHERRY
The Committee decided the motion wasn't voteable.
RON MACLEAN
How did they do that?
DON CHERRY
You'll have to ask them but Rathgeber for one isn't impressed.
RON MACLEAN
Where does the "sports team" come into it?
DON CHERRY
Yeah, so Warawa asked how it was that his motion got trashed, and Gordon O'Connor...remember Gordon?
RON MACLEAN
The guy who claimed the Red Cross was very happy with the way Canada was treating its prisoners in Afghanistan when it wasn't?
DON CHERRY
Yeah, him. Anyway, he got up on his hind feet in the House and said the government is like a sports team.
RON MACLEAN
What do you think of that?
DON CHERRY
Well, I'd have to agree that the coach decides how much ice time a player gets, but that's about it. When the game is on, you can't tell the players what to do. The fact is, Members of Parliament are not chosen by Management, they're elected by their constituents. I'm not saying party politics doesn't come into it. I'm just saying party politics is not a feature of British parliamentary democracy, except as it evolved. As it stands, citizens elect their Member of Parliament, and the members have privileges and duties to represent those citizens, whatever their party might think of it.
RON MACLEAN
And you think that's what Warawa is doing?
DON CHERRY
Absolutely. I happen to have the Standing Orders with me....
RON MACLEAN
Amazing....
DON CHERRY
And here it is. Kids, when you play the game of Parliamentary Democracy, you've gotta follow the rules.
RON MACLEAN
But there are the unwritten rules....
DON CHERRY
Yeah, The Code. But that's also true of Parliamentary Democracy. Anyway here it is, Rule 31:
A Member may be recognized, under the provisions of Standing Order 30(5), to make a statement for not more than one minute. The Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of this Standing Order.RON MACLEAN
But it says a Member may be recognized.
DON CHERRY
Hang on, hang on....I'm not done. Here's the "Commentary."
RON MACLEAN
What's a Commentary?
DON CHERRY
Just like it says. There is a commentary about this rule, just like you and me are sitting here commenting about the game.
RON MACLEAN
Are we in the Standing Orders?
DON CHERRY
You're making this more complicated than it has to be. Stifle yourself for a minute and I'll read it to you:
There is nothing in there, nothing [*thumps desk*] that says the Speaker has to do what a political party, or House Leader of any party, tells him or her to do. It says the Speaker retains discretion. So the Speaker is considering Warawa's appeal, much like Brendan Shanahan.Commentary — Standing Order 31
Standing Order 31 allows Members who are not Cabinet Ministers, when recognized by the Speaker, to address the House for up to one minute on virtually any matter of national, provincial or local concern during the 15-minute period that precedes Question Period. [1] The Speaker nevertheless retains discretion over the acceptability of each statement, [2] and has the authority to order a Member to resume his or her seat if improper use is made of the Standing Order. Personal attacks, criticisms of courts, judges or decisions rendered under law, reflections on the Senate and Senators, solicitation of funds or advertisement of causes, defamatory comments about non-Members, quoting verbatim remarks of a private citizen, or clearly frivolous statements have been ruled out of order. The time limit has been strictly enforced, on occasion leaving Members in mid-sentence. [3]Points of order arising from “Statements by Members” are normally dealt with after Question Period, pursuant to Standing Order 47, although in some cases unparliamentary language is dealt with immediately. [4]
RON MACLEAN
You're saying Shanahan is the NHL's Speaker...
DON CHERRY
Yeah sorta, except he's only got a few decades of history behind him. British parliamentary democracy has about 800 years.
RON MACLEAN
Well, we'll look forward to future developments in a very crowded season..
DON CHERRY
Did I show you my moose hide boxer shorts?
RON MACLEAN
Please....
Friday, March 22, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Responsibility to Protect from a bar stool
There seems to be a lot of loose talk about Syria. Most of it ignores the well established principles of international law, and the UN Security Council. People, including Americans, agonize about their "national interests" without actually considering their obligations under the body of international law to which they have subscribed.
A retired Canadian general, Lewis MacKenzie, argued that the road to Damascus lies through Moscow. It's a no-brainer. As it happens, NATO members of the Security Council have no brains except for Germany. There was an opportunity in Libya (Resolution 1970) to get the Security Council to work as many hoped, with a unanimous resolution (including China and Russia) referring alleged leadership crimes to the International Criminal Court, and imposing various economic restrictions. Then, panic set in and a Tonkin Gulf type resolution (1973) rammed through (with 5 abstentions) authorizing various things, interpreted by NATO to mean blowing up Libya as it saw fit even though NATO had no idea what its plan was and even more important, how anybody would know when the goals of the non-plan had been achieved, apart from Ghaddafi being raped with a bayonet on TV. NATO brushed the sand off its hands - a job well done - and went home. The subsequent disaster in Libya and Mali seems not to register on the NATO consciousness even at the brain stem level (possibly NATO's only level), and the idiot non-savant Susan Rice railed against Russian intransigence having just given Russia every reason to distrust the intentions of NATO and its friends in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, NATO seems to be keen to arm the Syrian "rebels" who are just as unknown as the Libyan "opposition." NATO knows fuck-all about Syria but obviously weapons are required by the "rebels", and therefore supplied without any legal justification whatever, either directly or through a Gulf petro-monarchy (Pepe Escobar's accurate label).
This isn't just irresponsible, it's criminal
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Mistruth and Miss Alberta
What the fuck is "mistruth"?
The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.George Orwell
Politics and the English Language
Monday, March 18, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
I'm absolutely right....
...and you're wrong.
The second lesson to draw is that one fiasco does not a norm make. Military intervention is sometimes indispensible, and in everyone’s interests. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Libya and Mali all qualify as successful international military interventions that saved countless lives. Syria is the most pressing current case for military intercession, despite the fear of making things worse – the diplomatic equivalent of the Hippocratic principle – and despite sheer intervention fatigue.
Heed the lessons of Iraq
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published
Last updated
I would say the intervention in Libya is an unqualified disaster. After the expenditure of who knows how many weapons and millions of dollars, Libya is essentially in anarchy. None of this troubles NATO apparently,who foisted the bent and twisted UN Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya as a military sandbox in which anybody could do anything they wanted, blow up anything they wanted, in the name of humanitarian intervention. After it was all over and Gadaffi (spelling optional) had been violently raped on TV before being murdered, Libya was declared a success, despite the loss of untold weapons, and the subsequent ignition of war in Mali, that Mr. Heinbecker also counts as a "success."
I'm not sure what Mr. Heinbecker has been smoking,but I think it's the same stuff Robert Fowler inhaled.
The fact is that UN Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously and referred war crimes in Libya to the International Criminal Court, which was an absolutely astounding advance in international law until Susan Rice and her fellow idiots felt it necessary to display their hallucinogenic peacock feathers, all of which contributed to the humanitarian disaster in Syria that the US and EU think can be solved by military intervention, the stupidity of which has been demonstrated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
I guess Mr. Heinbecker and Mr. Fowler are cut from the same cloth, delusional R2P.
Maybe he was seduced by power...
“[Lyndon Johnson ] had dreamed of being the greatest domestic President in this century, and he had become, without being able to stop it, a war President, and not a very good one at that.”
David Halberstam
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Bradley Manning and Jeffrey Delisle
The Five Eyes' Fantasy
 |
| Anne of Green Gables |
(2) Every one commits treason who, in
Canada,
(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of
overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;
(b) without lawful authority, communicates
or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose predudicial to the defence or safety of Canada;
Anyway, as far as is known, nobody died as a result of this venal treachery. World War 3 has not broken out and terrorists have not driven airliners into the CN tower. Iran is still doing whatever it's doing, and Afghanistan is still a mess, even though peace or victory is at hand. No damage has been claimed although the National Security State hysteria was over the top. Possibly, spies and innocent people were tortured in Pakistan or Uzbekistan, but that's not exactly news.
Bradley Manning on the other hand, released low level information - at minimal classification levels - for free. He did it by his own account for the greater good and for what it's worth, I vehemently agree with him. The helicopter video by itself should result in war crimes trials, if not for the crew then for their commanding officers who permitted such undisciplined, reckless, and lethal attacks to occur, and who created the culture that perpetuated them. There is considerable evidence that this is the tip of the iceberg, and yet Manning is the one who's in trouble.
Like Delisle, Manning has not been charged with treason. This is more comprehensible, meaning the US government wouldn't stand a chance of making such a charge stick.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
It's hard to believe that the framers of the Constitution would have imagined that a soldier reporting, truthfully, actions committed by the United States was "adhering to their enemies" if in fact those actions were on their face crimes that his suprior officers told him to shut up about. Some people are bent out of shape that Manning disobeyed orders. As I recall "following orders" was not a mitigating defence at your Nuremberg trials: Here's part of the Keitel judgement:
"There is nothing in mitigation. Superior orders, even to a soldier, cannot be considered in mitigation where crimes as shocking and extensive have been committed consciously, ruthlessly and without military excuse or justification."
Furthermore, the London Charter of 1945 made clear that following orders was no defence, but might be considered in mitigation.
I : JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Art. 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there
shall be individual responsibility:
(a) ' Crimes against peace: ' namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) ' War crimes: ' namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) ' Crimes against humanity.- ' namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Art. 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.
Art. 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.
Then we have the oath taken by the American military:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
So what happens when defending the Constitution conflicts with obeying "the orders of the President of the United States"? Nuremberg provides the answer.
It's very difficult to imagine "Collateral Murder" as anything other than a crime "committed consciously, ruthlessly, and without military excuse or justification." Suffice it to say that the release of the diplomatic cables revealed an entire world of the Great and the Good that is marked by festering lies, toxic evasions, and poisonous self-interest. That's what Bradley Manning wants made public.
He's right, obviously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
