| Poster | Message |
|---|
Former FT Poster
|  03 May '04 02:20 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 03 May '04 02:20
Until I can figure out how to change my handle: "Former FT Poster" to my real name, now that I've mentioned Bob's real name here, then I must state I am S Saines. Bob: Perhaps best we float the handle situation as-is and sign as we go at option? Sorry about the glitch in etiquette, and apologies if I threw you in the deep-end there first.
By using real names, I in no-way expect others to do same unless comfortable in doing so. I'm pushing the limits that MonitorCM himself has stated, albeit being incognito in a Housing Forum is....well....much 'More at Home"....
May I suggest someone open a "Europe: Politics, Economics, Sentiments, Where Does She Stand Now?" Forum at this site? |
|
| |  You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Former FT Poster
| 03 May '04 01:43 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 03 May '04 02:25
A quick note of introduction:
The following had been posted originally to the FT, but not published, and the reference to 'archives' can be accessed at FT WMD Topic Archives to gain a better context for the background to this post:
Originally submitted April 30 to the FT under my real name S Saines (Rights to authorship therefor remain mine:
From what are now the 'archives', I wrote:
Yet Further Analogy:
by S Saines #10646
24 Apr 2004
[...]
[We had a Defence Minister having to resign just a few years back, over our Special Ops taking prisoners in Afghanistan and turning them over to the US there, in violation of the Geneva Convention, based on a lie that Rumsfeld had given Eggleton, and Eggleton repeated to the House.
By custom, as Blair will have to, he resigned, or he would have been tossed!
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 136
CONTENTS
Thursday, January 31, 2002
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the context is that on Friday, Mr. Rumsfeld said that they would not respect the Geneva convention. On Saturday, Mr. Powell said the opposite, and President Bush must make a decision on January 28.
If there is something that is clear, it is that things were not clear in the U.S. administration.
At that point, did something click in the head of the Minister of National Defence? He said "We have prisoners and an agreement that is not clear for the Americans. I should inform the Prime Minister". Did he inform him, yes or no, or is he pretending he did not? Where is the truth?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us hold off a bit here. This is a war. We know that there are prisoners. We know that the International Committee of the Red Cross accepts prisoners and they have confirmed that. Also, the United States have confirmed that their prisoners were being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention.
... Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the United States has always made it clear to us, and I have had conversations as recent as yesterday with the secretary of defence, that it intends to abide by international law and that it intends to operate consistent with the Geneva conventions. That has always been what the United States has said. That is the nature of the agreement and the understanding that we have.
(Post is continued next frame due to character limit) |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Former FT Poster
| 03 May '04 01:43 : 0 recs : edited 2 times : last edit 03 May '04 02:33
[Translation](from French)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier--Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that was not the opinion of Powell and Rumsfeld, who had opposite views.
The Prime Minister was very clear in the House. He spoke of an agreement with the Americans regarding the respect of international laws and the Geneva convention. The Prime Minister even added "It is in this context that we handed over prisoners".
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the context to which the Prime Minister was referring was indeed the following: Canada had reached an agreement with the United States when it transferred the prisoners on January 21? According to the minister, there was no agreement on the 17th. Was there one on the 21st? When was that agreement reached?]
[...]
[URL=http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/136_2002-01-31/toc136-E.htm]Hansard Parliament of Canada[/URL]
Eggleton had to resign! Rumsfeld had lied to him, and Eggleton got the egg, since...lying to the House is cause for resignation...or worse.]
[...]
Bob Kennedy - I put it specifically to you by way of a Cdn reference, but also to all here:
How does that all look in hindsight now in lieu of the Prisoner Debacle? Some of these US Personnel now charged claim (by hearsay gist): "I was never told about the Geneva Convention". The implications are astounding. Some here have dismissed the applicability of "International Law". We just might find out! But *Law Between Allies* is in for a whole new test too.
And how is the Ottawa model to not repeat itself in Westminster? Except it is more than Mr Hoon to go...it goes right to the top...what's left of Him.
It is not just the horror of the Prisoner Debacle that is so shocking, (And Amnesty and Others have a continual report of these sorts of 'exceptions' happening) it is the *Predictability* of it showing up, as if we were dealing with Honest Men and we could actually believe their stories. There is nothing surprising about this.
The UK wisely learned from the Cdn experience in Afghanistan, ( Edit, May 02, 03:38, I must add that Canada had a very similar issue of torturing prisoners that rightly or wrongly disbanded a whole Regiment) and took responsibility for her own prisoners. That line of demarcation is blurring again, by Association if not Fact. I don't know how much longer Blair can keep the screws on the UK Military Establishment about this. The Prisoner Debacle has not only crossed the line, it has fractured it.
Reading Sunday's Observer might prove revealing for the latest leaks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my original posting to the FT, I had included this:
Editor:
This is as new for posters as it is for you, so here's venturing into the unknown not knowing where the floor is! I will cc' the following to Bob Kennedy, a freely admitted close friend, just to bump-start the forum again. My perspective on this is very specific to Canada in detail, Common to All in Inference, and perhaps Bob Kennedy can add to this:
I am expecting a response here from Bob Kennedy, and ostensibly this forum is now in motion. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
Choam Nomsky
| 03 May '04 01:30 : 0 recs
Thanks for the intellectual lifesaver.... What a great concept!!...Imagine having a forum where the actually post what you send in!! Brilliant! Innovative!! Revolutionary! I think I'll tell my friends at the Financial Times about it!
Looking forward to the new forum. Thanks again. |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
MonitorCM
| 03 May '04 01:06 : 0 recs
Welcome to a new discussion on this new website.
It, of course, appears to be out of place, but I have created it at the request of a number of ex-FT forum posters so that the discussion on this topic may continue.
I will be creating a more generic site to discuss a number of topics in the very near future, but I am happy to create additional topics on this site in the mean time.
Best Regards |
|
| | You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics. |
|
|
|
|
