Harper's War Agenda

From Rabble.ca by Derrick O'Keeffe

Expanding foreign military bases serves Harper's war agenda

"Canadian fighter jets have flown more than 400 sorties over Libya thus far, and NATO's air campaign is intensifying. The Canadian planes have been operating from a NATO base in Italy. To fight wars from the air, you need to have the use of foreign bases.

Last week, Le Devoir broke the news that the Canadian government had completed agreements for new foreign bases in Jamaica and Germany, with talks ongoing to establish bases in Kuwait, Tanzania and several other countries."

The piece includes a link to the Canadian Peace Alliance and a statement against Canada's garrisoning of the planet.

"The Canadian Peace Alliance condemns the plans of the Harper government to establish new foreign military bases for Canada. This is a policy that has been in the works for some time but, like so much else about Canada's foreign policy, it was completely excluded from the discussion during the recent federal election

...The announcement about new foreign bases came at the same time as a request to keep Canadian Forces on the ground in Richelieu, Quebec to help with flood relief was being ignored. The Harper government continues to encourage costly and unnecessary deployments of the Forces abroad, while showing little interest in using its resources at home for disaster relief.

Foreign bases have nothing to do with Canadian security, and everything to do with the Harper government's desire to be able to participate in future military aggressions like the ones ongoing in Afghanistan and Libya."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian War Crimes in Afghanistan

A lengthy, well-documented and detailed piece by Michael Keefer, professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario, on the complicity of Harper and his minions in Afghan detainee transfer to certain torture, deliberate blocking of information at the highest levels in the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government and outright lies from Harper's government when questioned by news and parliamentary committees about it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian War Crimes in Afghanistan

"...[A]ccording to law professor Amir Attaran, who has seen uncensored versions of the documents that the Harper government has so strenuously resisted sharing with Parliament, the paper trail is thoroughly incriminating. In March 2010 Attiran told CBC News: “If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees […]. There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That’s what’s in these documents, and that’s why the government is covering up as hard as it can.”

This question hasn't even come up in this election campaign except by Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party (NDP) whose position all along has been against the war and Canada's part in it. For his efforts, his was given the name "Taliban Jack" by Harper Conservatives and their supporters.

Michael Keefer's conclusion:

"The clear pattern of intentionality revealed in the words and actions of senior Canadian government bureaucrats and senior military officers is both embarrassing (these people actually believe, despite copious evidence to the contrary, that torture produces real ‘intelligence’) and also a scandalous offence against the rule of law.

More scandalous still is the evidence that these people were acting on directives from Stephen Harper—that Harper knew perfectly well that the Afghan puppet-state tortures the prisoners handed over to it by the Canadian Forces, but nonetheless permitted the continuation of this system, and that he actually took charge of the program of lying about it. "

Murray Dobbin: Canada in Afghanistan - the Big Lie

Our country's leaders are lying to themselves, to us and to the rest of the world. They implicate us in their lies, so, as Canadians, we become part of the big lie. If we refuse to swallow the lies or go along with them, we are called un-Canadian, unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists or terrorism. Just because lots of people sign on to the Big Lie doesn't make it true. Just because leaders of "democratic" governments skate over, ignore or refuse to see the illegality of their actions, it does not make them legal.

I always imagine Murray Dobbin standing on a mountaintop during a storm, calling out to Canadians to warn them of the danger they face - and very few can be bothered to listen.

Canada in Afghanistan - the Big Lie

Our tragic and pathetic Afghanistan adventure is a dramatic commentary on the state of Canadian politics and democracy. Despite all the evidence that continuing to stay in this benighted country is worse than pointless, despite the fact that the majority of Canadians want to get out sooner rather than later and despite the fact that even Stephen Harper recognizes that the Karzai regimen is one of the most repugnant and corrupt Canadians have ever been asked to support we are unable as a nation to extricate ourselves from this deadly mess.

In spite of all the blathering about the common sense of Canadians, politicians, except for New Democratic leader Jack Layton, who has never supported and does not support the Big Lie, do not listen to us. We are expected to pay up and shut up.

And our country is being ruined.

The Afghan war/occupation not only further corrupts and destroys Afghanistan; it corrupts Canadian politics by obliging everyone to be involved in a Big Lie. We have to lie about everything: the likelihood of improvement, the objectives of our partner, the US; the building of democracy, the role of oil and gas pipelines, the liberation of women, Afghanis’ attitude towards Canadian soldiers, our commitment to the Geneva Convention, and the story we tell Canadian soldiers about why they are there. Nothing but lies and everyone one of them corrosive of our political culture and international image.

Whistleblowers, whether they be diplomats like Richard Colvin, translators like Ahmadshah Malgarai, or members of JTF2, who report wrongdoing by members of the Canadian Armed Forces are ignored, bullied, or have their integrity or their motives questioned.

The legal maxim, "Cui bono?" or "Who benefited?" should indicate that a diplomat, translator or member of the armed forces is unlikely to advance his career if he exposes the wrongdoing of the government or military brass. Clearly the bureaucracies have much to lose if the truth is told and everything to gain if it is simply swept under the rug.

Dishonourable wars – and most are – dishonour everyone involved and make liars out of the most senior people justifying the conflict. This war is incredibly destructive not only of the country being attacked and occupied but it corrodes every Canadian institution involved: the military, the civil service, Parliament, political leaders, the media and those in academia recruited to supply justification for an unjustifiable war.

Fake Taliban leader. Real money.

I can't believe this.

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

"For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise...[B]ut now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. ...[A]fghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

The last sentence made me laugh. It really shouldn't have but what else can you do when the world, or you, are going mad.

But wait! There's more!

"The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said."

Somebody is laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm simply don't know what to say.

Massive casualties

The commander of Canadian forces in Afghanistan has said that a "flurry" of activities will occur in the fall and into next year.

When I read this, my heart sank - just when I thought it couldn't sink any further.

'Massive activities' from Canadian troops coming in Afghanistan: Lieutenant-General

"There’ll be a flurry of military operations starting with the major ones this fall, (and) there’ll be other ones certainly in the winter and spring," said Lt.-Gen. Lessard, head of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command. "We’re ready to launch."

Massive activites will lead to massive casualties but they don't seem to care.

Then comes the usual crippled logic for the whole thing.

If Canadian troops do not improve conditions in the districts before leaving next year, their sacrifices since 2006 will have been wasted, he suggested.

I can't believe that anybody with more than two functioning neurons is still using that stupid justification for mass death - of civilians and of soldiers.

Canada and the F-35's

From the wonderful Dr. Neil Kitson and his blog Canadians in Afghanistan

Canada's Purchase of the F-35 explained

They also did a wonderful explanation of the subprime mortages.

IED attacks in Afghanistan from WikiLeaks info

Using the massive sea of data that WikiLeaks released, this very disturbing video was made of the escalation of IED attacks in Afghanistan since the invasion and occupation.



Canadians seem most disturbed by a report in the WikiLeaks info from September 3, 2006 that states that four Canadian soldiers were killed by "friendly" fire (they should really retire that description) - a bomb dropped by U.S. forces called in for air support. Soldiers who were there say, in conflicting reports, that one was killed while walking along a road while another says he was killed when sticking his head through a hatchway. Canadian military types at first denied that it was friendly fire, as if getting killed one way was somehow more honourable or worthwhile than getting killed another way. Families of the dead soldiers had to relive the whole thing again. And of course we still don't know.

The next day, a Canadian soldier was killed by a U.S. bomb. There doesn't seem to be any argument on that point.

With casualty numbers going through the roof, 414 soldiers this year so far with a total of nearly two thousand since 2001, with uncounted thousands of Afghan civilians dead, wounded or displaced, why is this war still being fought?

Worse still, what is being covered up by the Canadian government - the treatment of prisoners, the numbers of wounded in mind and body, the use of defense contractors, the cost of the whole thing - now and in the future?

Who knows? Harper is taking a summer holiday. Nice that he can, that he has an income, a house that's safe to live in, in a country that hasn't been invaded by people with too many weapons and no plan.

Photo essay of Afghanistan in the 1950's and 60's

For everyone who says that Afghanistan is a "medieval" country, this photo essay of Afghanistan in the 1950's and 60's may be an eye-opener, for those who have eyes to open, that is.

Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan...by Mohammad Qayoumi

No Plan A, either

From the Washington Post and Karen de Young on the Kandahar plan.

"The Obama administration's campaign to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's second-largest city is a go-for-broke move that even its authors are unsure will succeed. The bet is that the Kandahar operation, backed by thousands of U.S. troops and billions of dollars, will break the mystique and morale of the insurgents, turn the tide of the war and validate the administration's Afghanistan strategy.

There is no Plan B."

I'm not sure there was a plan A either.

This is going to be horrible.

Important documents on Afghan detainees missing

A report from the Hill Times today says that members of parliament are doubtful they will see all the documents relating to the Afghan detainee transfers and subsequent treatment at the hands of the ANP and the Afghan army. The Department of National Defence and the military appear to have "lost" them. Is this going to be Somalia all over again?

Opposition MPs are wary about the Defence Department's commitment to produce all documents on detainee transfers in Afghanistan following the Army's inexplicable failure to locate a month's worth of crucial logs and reports for an internal inquiry into detainee beating at the hands of Afghan police in 2006.

...[M]Ps say the loss of documents surrounding the 2006 incident raises comparisons to Defence Department attempts to hide and destroy documents demanded by a commission of inquiry into the beating death of a Somali civilian by Canadian troops in 1993.

Are Stephen Harper and others in the relevant groups just trying to distract and delay until they can manufacture another cause for an election and deep six the investigation? The level of secrecy is astounding. The excuse of national security seems more than a little artificial.

Neil Kitson on his blog Canadians in Afghanistan, has pointed out the conflict of interest if either Gordon O'Connor (former MND) or Peter MacKay (present one) was included on the "secret" panel:

In the nomination of of a new committee to review such documents, Gordon O'Connor, and Peter MacKay, should now be excluded by conflict of interest. Mr. O'Connor was Minister of National Defence during some of the most important periods in the transfers now under scrutiny, and he was succeeded by Mr. MacKay. Participation by either in the forthcoming review of documents would obviously put them in the impossible and illegal position of participating in Parliament's investigation of their own decisions.

An offensive by any other name is still offensive

From Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com:

As NATO Rebrands Kandahar Invasion, Residents Express Concern

Having spent months touting its upcoming Kandahar “offensive” to the world as the centerpiece of their 2010 plans for the ongoing Afghan War, NATO has decided that “offensive” doesn’t sound very good, and has reported decided to rebrand the invasion as a “process” or conversely a “series of efforts.”

The Kandahar Process. It sounds like a chemical process.

Or maybe a reverse Philosopher's Stone which turns gold into lead.

As for the Kandahar Series of Efforts - nope. Won't fly.

“More foreign troops means more attacks and more dead civilians,” noted Khan Mohammed, a car dealer in Kandahar, adding that NATO should “open their eyes and realize they can’t beat the Taliban through military means.”

Will somebody take this guy and make him King, please? He seems to have a firm grip on the situation.

And, after nearly a year under McChrystal's command, every month from July 2009 onward (he took command in mid-June 2009) had more casualties than any other of the same months since the beginning of this "war". How, in anybody's reckoning, does this look like success?

As I write this, the casualty count for 2010 is 185, almost as many as all of 2006 at 191. Numbers have been going up exponentially year after year.

And, of course, there's this to look forward to.

Attacks signal end of poppy harvest in Afghanistan

Once the crop's in, the guns and bombs come out.

Note to Erik Prince: praise from a psycho isn't praise

Jeremy Scahill received a taped copy of a speech by Erik Prince revealing the extent to which his mercenary operation is involved in the death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and his plans for endless war across the planet anyplace his ultra-right wing crusader mentality decides.

Iran is the "centre of badness" according to this wingnut. We keep hearing the same garbage from Harper's government spokes-droids, including Lawrence Cannon, the Canadian Foreign Affairs minister, who said this at the U.N. the other day:

"It's the same speech, the same aggressive tone," Cannon said. "Nothing today would indicate that that tone nor that aggressive behaviour on his part, nor on the government of Iran's part, has changed."

Interesting that he could comment on a speech that he walked out on. Must have superhuman hearing.

Forget that Iran hasn't attacked anybody in about a thousand years. Why spoil a good story with the facts?

Americans are paying good money to Prince's operation - but so are Canadians. Blackwater trained some of our soldiers at our expense. Who knows what else they were trained to do?

He had these words about Canadians, which damn near made me sick.

Canada, however, received praise from Prince. "The Canadians have lost per capita more than America has in Afghanistan. They are fighting and they are doing it and so if you see a Canadian thank them for that. The politicians at home take heavies for doing that," Prince said. He did not mention the fact that his company was hired by the Canadian government to train its forces.

As far as I'm concerned the politicians here aren't taking nearly enough "heavies" for this.

I hope this has nothing to do with the Afghan detainee issue and cover-up by Stephen Harper's government.  I feel a bout of nausea coming on.

And keep your thanks to yourself, Prince and Princelings. It's not welcome.

Secrecy - the first refuge of incompetents

What is Stephen Harper covering up when he cites National Security and the security of the "troops" as reasons for not disclosing relevant information regarding transfer and subsequent torture of Afghan detainees?

Now, if that's not enough to make a person lose their last meal...

Scott Horton, referring to the subpoena of a NY Times reporter and author who disclosed CIA incompetents (and incompetence) in dealing with Iran refers to a the report of the Commission on Government Security, the Committee on Government Operations of the [U.S.] House of Representatives, 1960 Report and the place of secrecy in a democracy:

"Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people."

 Horton goes on to say that

"... But mistakes that are kept secret are more likely to be repeated, and those who commit them are more likely to advance to positions in which they can do more costly damage. ...[T]he public’s security was in this case plainly served by disclosure, and the prosecution that is apparently being mounted is another gallant defense of the government’s right to keep its inept conduct secret not from foreign enemies but from the American public. Such steps make us dumber, weaker, and less safe."

Same goes here. Incompetents in high places is not a recipe for success.

Bring it on

Neil Kitson, doctor, educator and anti-war activist is keeping an eye on Canada's freaking government and its activities in Afghanistan.

Neil's blog, Canadians in Afghanistan gives you an idea what this guy is all about.

Re the Harper government's refusal to hand over papers on detainee abuse in Afghanistan, here's a quote from an article posted on Antiwar.com today, Canada’s ‘Whole Freaking Government’ Approach in Afghanistan

"One of the reasons for the flagrant obstruction of justice by the current government in Ottawa might be that if the truth comes out in Canada, the truth will also come out about NATO, a lot of famous people might end up on trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, or even better, Québec Superior Court, which conducted a successful investigation and prosecution regarding war crimes in Rwanda (R.C. Munyaneza, 2009 QCCS 2201) using the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act of 2000 [.pdf] and subsequent case law, and the world might never be the same."

Bring it on.

Dr. Kitson, I second that emotion. (Thanks, Smokey.)

Whoo-hoo! Milliken rules!

Tories have two weeks to release Afghan files

"Speaker rules government's refusal to hand over uncensored documents on Afghan detainees violates privileges of House of Commons."

Apparently Stephen Harper wasn't in the House when the ruling came down.

Surprise, surprise.

Sliding towards dictatorship

It looks like Duncan Cameron doesn't think Peter Milliken, speaker of the house, will rule against the Harper regime. It will more likely be a slap on the wrist and presto! the basis of our government has changed.

Parliamentary supremacy and the Speaker's corner
by Duncan Cameron at rabble.ca

"Most people expect Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal, to sidestep the issue of parliamentary supremacy; he may issue a rebuke to the Harper government, but acknowledge the legitimacy of cabinet ministers making their own secrecy determinations."

I'd love to see him rule that the Harperite stance is illegitimate, but I fear he won't. But will they get away with this?

"The Conservatives have breached international law by handing over of Afghan detainees to be tortured, and should be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, irrespective of the Speaker's ruling. We do not need additional proof or "secret" documents in order to arrive at that conclusion. But we do need to face the issue of disregard for parliament raised by the Harper government on a daily basis, irrespective of any crimes it has committed."

And what of the whistleblower Richard Colvin, one the people supposedly given "real protection" by Harper and his Accountability Act?

"Richard Colvin is the Canadian diplomat who raised the issue of torture inside the government. He was called to testify before a parliamentary committee on what he knew, and when he knew it. While making his testimony, on orders of the Conservatives, he was denied access to his own emails.

A public servant called as a witness before a parliamentary committee and unable to access his own work while testifying? Even George Orwell did not imagine tyranny being that imaginative. Every Conservative MP deserves to be defeated in the next election."

So, "real protection" consists of piling on Colvin as soon as he opens his mouth, virtually calling him a liar, misrepresenting his work, and then taking cover behind a pile of redacted documents as high as the Berlin Wall?

I feel a major depression coming on...again.

A Charles the First moment

Next week, the Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, will rule on whether Stephen Harper was in contempt of parliament when he refused to hand over unredacted papers to the parliamentary committee investigating allegations of torture of Afghan prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities.

From The Hill Times:

House Speaker to rule on historic confrontation between PM, opposition parties

"House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken will rule this week on the historic confrontation between the opposition parties and the government over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's refusal to hand over secret information about potential detainee torture in Afghanistan, sources say. "

Attorney General Nicholson maintains that it is his right to refuse access for national security reasons. Others maintain that the power of governance is in the hands of the elected members of parliament, most of whom are not members of the minority Conservative Party now in power.

I hate to think what may actually be in those papers if they are trying so hard to cover them up. The truth will out, I'm sure. Harper just hopes he can stall long enough that the whole thing will just go away.

"Liberal MP Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Ont.) launched the Commons legal attack against the government nearly two months ago, after Prime Minister Harper suspended Parliament for a month to delay the government's reaction to a Dec. 10 opposition motion ordering production of the uncensored documents...'[I]t is only among the uninformed and the negligently ignorant that the power to send for persons, papers and records would appear unclear,' Mr. Lee told the Commons in his rebuttal to Mr. Nicholson. 'Those powers and authorities are all part of Canada's Constitution. How desperately embarrassing it is that the attorney general of Canada could stand in this place and say these things.'"

The uninformed and negligently ignorant. That's what we're stuck with at the moment.

The Globe and Mail on April 21 quoted Errol Mendes, University of Ottawa law professor and constitutional expert, on the importance of Peter Milliken's decision.

“It’s huge,” said Errol Mendes...[C]enturies of precedent dictate that Parliament is supreme in holding the government to account, he observed.

“If the Speaker rules against the opposition motions, it would not be too hyperbolic to say we have changed our system of governance,” he maintained. “The executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons.”

But then again, Stephen Harper never wanted to "first among equals" or to share power with anybody. He doesn't even have a deputy prime minister. I suppose that would be as alien to him as the idea of a deputy dictator.

In 2006, Shortly after Stephen Harper was elected as PM, D.L. McCracken brought together this trio of quotes by and about Stephen Harper.

"Three ads in particular stand out - Stephen Harper is quoted in the first ad as saying, "America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world"; from an article in the Washington Post in late 2005, "Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the western world. Harper is pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative. Bush's new best friend is the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader. A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face."; and finally this little gem, "Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status. You won't recognize Canada when I get through with it". "

It must be working. I don't recognize Canada. I'm a stranger in a strange land. What we need at all these hearings and inquiries is a Fair Witness.

When injured soldiers become annual statistics

We are a small country, population-wise, and every military death in Afghanistan, whether battle-related or not, has been reported in local and national newspapers, accompanied by a solemn, usually young, face looking straight at the observer. With every report of a death, there has been the number of wounded, too, until recently.

That was why many people were surprised to hear of the death in an Edmonton hospital of Corporal Darren Fitzpatrick of severe injuries to his lower body by an IED outside Kandahar. He was treated first in Kandahar, then the U.S. hospital in Germany. He was stabilized and brought back to Canada at his family's request and died the next day. He spoke to them before he died, a small comfort, I suppose, in a world of hurt.

But if he had not died, we wouldn't have known. The Department of National Defense does not report the number or severity of injuries, only the number of casualties so Canadians in general are completely unaware of them.

But now the propaganda is coming out, even if the facts aren't.

Canada forbids reporting of battlefield wounded

"The Canadian military has quietly stopped reporting when soldiers are wounded on the battlefield and will instead deliver annual statistics to the public.

The stark policy shift is described as a deliberate attempt to keep the Taliban in the dark."

"The weekend death of Corporal Darren Fitzpatrick in an Edmonton trauma centre brought the directive to the forefront. The 21-year-old was mortally wounded in a previously unreported March 6 roadside bombing."

Apart from the deliberate attempt to keep the horrible consequences of an ill-conceived war from Canadian citizens, it was the cool determination to relegate them to annual statistics that bothered me the most.

First, how many years are we expecting to be reporting these statistics? I thought the "mission", whatever it is, is supposed to be finished in 2011, although that seems highly in doubt now.

And second, since when do military injuries become numbers to be reported like the annual per capita consumption of cheddar cheese or the vacation destinations of the traveling populace?

It's the second line of that quote that tells it all, though, that the withholding of injury statistics would keep the "Taliban in the dark".

One problem with that, though. The Taliban were there. They saw what happened and they send the information to their network. They don't send GPS-guided rockets or direct missile-laden drones from miles or continents or hemispheres away.

So, who exactly is being kept in the dark here, eh?

We have become a nation of mushrooms.

I guess Canadians aren't really leaving Afghanistan, then.

Peter MacKay, Minister of Defence, has kicked General Leslie, the head of the Canadian army, out of a job. Well, not really, but they just don't know where they're going to put him yet. So they say. I believe them. Sure.

Head of Canadian army shuffled out of job

"The head of Canada's army, who was set to play a major role in the withdrawal of the Canadian combat mission from Afghanistan next year, has been moved out of his job, officials said on Wednesday."

"Leslie, chief of the land staff, made headlines early last year when he said the army was worn out and would need at least a year to recover once the 2,800-strong Afghan military mission ended in 2011...He later reversed his position, citing increased investment in the military.

"He is no longer chief of land staff, but he awaits future responsibilities ... (he) has several options under consideration. He's a very capable and valuable officer," said a spokesman for Defense Minister Peter MacKay."

Yeah, yeah, sure, Peter. What a mealymouthed, lukewarm piece of organic fertilizer that is.

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come not to bury Leslie but damn him with faint praise!
You believe me, don'tcha? Huh? Huh? Don'tcha?"

In his place?

"Leslie will be replaced by Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, currently deputy commander of Canadian troops based abroad. He served a 15-month tour in Baghdad from 2006 to 2008 with the U.S. military as part of an exchange program."

So that makes two. Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk was also in Iraq. Few Canadians know the extent of Canadian military involvement in the illegal Iraq war.

Now the chief and the head of the army can boast of having Iraq War creds carved into their bedposts.

Could this have anything to do with the rumour that the U.S. will be asking (demanding?) that Canadian soldiers stay in Afghanistan, supposedly as "trainers" after the parliamentary mandated 2011 withdrawal date?

General Leslie said last year that the Canadian army is exhausted. So are the Canadian people and their tax money.

Generals speaking inconvenient truths?

Just put them in the discard pile and shuffle the deck.

Secrecy - the first refuge of incompetents

Here are a few words to the HarperCons while they attempt to cover up the "who knew what and when" of Afghan detainees captured by Canadian soldiers and handed over to Afghan authorities, even after the government had been warned by the Red Cross and their own diplomats in Afghanistan that they would be almost certainly subjected to torture.

They have repeatedly denied knowing anything, then attempted to hide behind the Canadian military or the previous government.

This from Scott Horton, constitutional law expert who writes a blog titled No Comment for Harper's (no connection to Stephen Harper, not at all).

Scott Horton, March 19th, Harper's, No Comment

The Pentagon loses a Skirmish with WikiLeaks

On the subject of secrecy:

In 1960, a congressional committee, recognizing the need to rein in the extravagant claims of secrecy that were thriving in the Department of Defense and intelligence community, observed that

Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people.

I don't suppose the Harper regime is listening, though. They never do.