Kady O'Malley has and in depth look at the Afghan Detainee Document Agreement (ADDA) struck last Friday by the parties.
If I were leader of, oh let's say the Liberal Party of Canada, I'd probably look for a legal mind with some Human Rights background to be my rep on the committee. What's that? We have somebody like that in caucus already? Oh, and he was the Minister of Justice too??? Bonus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I opined to someone that Rae would be a good one to look at them.
Considering his mass experience on such things (Air India), he would be my second choice.
To me, anyone who has agreed to sit on the CPCCA is permanently compromised on civil liberties.
Why not Derek Lee? He's done the basic work on parliamentary principle, and he seems to me to have a spine with a brain on top. What we need is people who know how to resist phony claims of "national security" and "damage to international relations" when the actual motive is CYA.
I hear MI is also an "expert" on Human Rights.
I agree: I think I thought Derek Lee would be good as well. Since Rae already sits on the current Afghanistan committee, perhaps it wouldnt be wise to have him on both of these.
Rae was on SIRC so he is used to calling bullshit on claims of national security, and also respectful of it when genuine. But his profile also makes it harder to attack him if he judges disclosure a good idea. But he'll probably want his summer free to do politicking. Wilfert knows the issues, but a bit too respectful of nat'l security claims, and lower profile. Cotler makes sense, and it's a shorter commute (has to be people from nearby, given time required this summer). Cotler also the kind of guy who actually enjoys close reading and analysis of documents, and no pan-Canadian politicking for him to do.
Ignatieff himself should be on this commitee.
I don't like this:
"it will refer the document to a Panel of Arbiters who will determine how that relevant and necessary information will be made available to Members of Parliament and the public without compromising national security"
What standards are these arbiters applying? "Comprising national security" is an utterly political term.
Secondly, how does the panel of Arbiters function? What laws are they following? Do the Arbiters have to be unanimous in their decisions?
Post a Comment