- Stephen Harper? All Canadians Should be Concerned, Stand Up and Take Note

Canada's national security ought to trump the Afghan affair.

The indicators suggest, as far as I can see, the possibility that Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay, Laurie Hawn, O'Connor and the Con's are hiding things, not because of 'national security' but for partizan purposes and, perhaps, right down to personal reasons given International criminal sanctions and Canada's criminal sanction regarding war crimes. Also, the actions of Harper and his Con's seems to me to mimic the profile of the guilty.

Given the mood of an awful lot of people in the country, including the opposition parties, and especially the NDP, if evidence of wrong doing is uncovered they may not stop until justice is done and they may be right (more as an extremist, non compromising approach like Layton, as opposed to the compromising, what's in the best interest of all Canadians approach traditionally maintained by the Liberal) to so do.

However, this is not a trivial consideration.

One need only consider what Tom Flanagan said on Power and Politics with Evan Solomon, CBC News, 31 May '10:

"One thing one thing that needs to be said, it's characteristic of Democratic governments not to pursue past, ah past, heads of Government, to show mercy. I think the wisest thing that Gerald Ford did was to, ah, pardon Richard Nixon. It's characteristic of all [sic] authoritarian, totalitarian governments to pursue previous politicians and ra, you know, rejoice in putting them in jail and so forth. I think Democratic governments have to set their face to the future and, and show mercy, even when wrong doing has been demonstrated.

[Q.Solomon: . . . why should justice have a sunset clause?]

[Flanagan] Because, if you turn government into a battle where the stakes are imprisonment, you're going to undermine democracy itself, people will start to use undemocratic methods to stay in power, because they know that loss of power means loss of liberty or perhaps even loss of life.

Flanagan was talking in the context of the decision just released in the Oliphant Inquiry. But, the applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing scandal is chilling, especially given who made the statement (prof of political science at U of Calgary), adviser and long time friend of Harper and and former campaign manager for Harper and the Con's)."

The feeling is that Flanagan's statement appeared to be prepared, intended to carry a message. It was way over-the-top as far as Mulroney's situation is concerned and could not, in my mind, have been intended to apply to it since for one thing he has been out of office for so long and has no opportunity to undermine democracy to save his skin. Also, it is simply not that important and it is unlikely anyone would support him in any such undermining Democracy endeavour. And when it gets right down to it, Mulroney is simply not that type of personality.

As a warning and with its applicability to the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal it is chilling - perhaps intended. With someone like Flanagan one must assume that if that was the impact experienced, especially when it is so pronounced, it would be wise to assume that was the impact intended.

Harper is right (in a right wing extremist sort of way), it is a question of national security.

All Canadians should be concerned, very concerned, especially with the Harper dogma such as 'Losers don't get to form coalitions'; and, "Let me be very clear:  Canada's Government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party.", stand up and take note.

Also, sometimes it may be that compromise is the way to go as opposed to in-your-face confrontation, even if you are right or should I say left.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html