A Trial Balloon

Norman Spector points the way for the Conservatives on the Khadr affair:

Sitting down with the Americans makes good sense. But suppose there’s no way at this time to reach a mutually acceptable framework to release Mr. Khadr into Canadian custody and control.

What then?

As the author of today’s Globe editorial correctly notes:

“The court refrained, wisely, from ordering Ottawa to try to bring Mr. Khadr, a citizen, home from the United States prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been for seven years. It was wise partly because the court lacks “institutional competence” in foreign affairs (as the court itself pointed out)… "

How would that incompetence disappear if the United States held to its position that Mr. Khadr will be tried by a military commission — notwithstanding knowing his age at the time he’s alleged to have committed the crime.

Answer? It wouldn’t in the least.

And why might we not be able to reach an agreement with the Americans at this time?

Consider President Barack Obama’s predicament in the wake of the Massachusetts surprise and upcoming mid-term elections in which the Democrats are likely to suffer huge losses.

Consider his vulnerability to Republican attacks on security matters: the underwear near-miss followed by additional errors in interrogating the alleged perpetrator; the terrorist attack allegedly carried out by Major Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood — which featured another series of huge errors by his Administration; the deteriorating situation in what candidate Obama had once called the good war; the mess he’s gotten himself into on his promise to close Guantanamo, including his recent decision to halt the repatriation of Yemeni prisoners back to their country for rehabilitation; today’s flip-flop on trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan… I could go on.

In other words, the Conservatives should make a show of talking to the Obama administration, but only after fixing it with their Republican allies so that a Fox News shit storm errupts. Given the weak as piss occupant in the White House, the Conservatives are betting they can roll the President, just like their right-wing American cousins.

Recommend this Post

Norman Wiseman's Fun With Statisitics

I see Norman Wiseman is shilling for the no mmp forces, as usual. He wants to tell the population that people in countries with PR are clamoring to join us in the FPTP universe, so he writes the following:

As groups and parties like Fair Vote Canada, Equal Voice, the NDP and the Greens in Ontario agitate for PR, groups in some countries with PR rally against it. Recently, 800,000 Italians signed a petition demanding a referendum to move Italy away from PR and toward first-past-the-post. Italians voted in favour of such a change in a 1991 referendum, but that effort was finessed.

800,000, eh? That sure sounds like a big number, until you look up Italy's population, which is 58 million. So, about 1.3% of the population wants to get rid of PR. Numbers like that wouldn't even meet the threshold for gaining seats in the Ontario legislature, under the proposed system. It's nice though that cranks and loners have a friend in Norman Wiseman. I just wish he wouldn't pretend that these fine folks represent a mass movement, in order to mislead the voters of Ontario.

Update: A brief word about Prof. Wiseman's last paragraph:

Ontarians, in contrast, cannot complain that the Liberals "stole" their 2003 election victory. Their 46 per cent of the vote represented an undisputed mandate for governmental change. That is why the Ontario referendum is likely to fail.

1) No one is saying the Liberals "stole" the election in 2003. 2)46% of the vote is not a majority and so on its own cannot alone be seen as a mandate for anything. Also, should we interpret 46Z of the vote to be a mandate for 70% of the seats and 100% of the power in Ontario? Mr. Wiseman doesn't answer this because he knows the answer wouldn't pass the laugh test. 3)As for the referendum failing, we shall see.

Recommend this Post