Don't Go There

You may have your primaries and caucuses and State-of-the-Union addresses south of the border--well, we got politics up here, too. The House of Commons is coming back into session today, and this session will be ugly on a couple of fronts.

One of the main stories is the economy. Not that there's much to say. The U.S. economy is sneezing; expect a cold up here in spite of the Conservative government's self-advertised fiscal responsibility. Pff.

The other main story relates to Afghanistan. Now there's a Gordian knot of issues that would be difficult to untangle (safely) in a single blog post. So today I will stick to one main issue. And if you're lucky, I'll be too sick of thinking about the rest of it to continue to write about it.

In any case, here's today's lesson on politics in Canada. In the past week, one newsworthy story from Afghanistan has been the process used to handle prisoners captured by Canadian and other NATO forces. The standard process has been that prisoners were handed over to the local Afghan forces for processing and holding. This process is part of the training of those forces to make them ready, eventually, to take over military operations of their own home territories.

About a year ago, allegations surfaced that these prisoners were being tortured--and I suppose I have to add that they are being tortured in ways that aren't "accepted" as being "okay," though the mind boggles at having even to say such a thing.

Anyway. Back then, the Prime Minister cast aspersions at the patriotism of politicians who questioned the actions of the noble Canadian and Afghan forces. That rhetoric was reported briefly but mostly dismissed. It probably colo(u)red some of the debate up here, but the media didn't pick up that rhetorical strategy and run with it. Whew.

Keep in mind that soldiers pick up lots of locals during their operations. Some are anti-NATO fighters; some are Taliban sympathizers or operatives. Some, however, are innocent of anything except living in their own country, which is now under foreign occupation. Not that it matters--conventions regarding humane treatment of ALL prisoners have been in place for decades. I'll say it again: those conventions apply to ALL prisoners. (Yes, this will be on the test.)

The U.S. and Canada have vilified regimes that abused these basic human rights for detainees and prisoners. However, unless you make a concerted effort to ignore all news, everyone now knows that the U.S. has a less-than-sterling record for its treatment of those it has detained and captured since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. One must assume that U.S. soldiers captured by hostile forces don't expect to be treated according to accepted standards for fair treatment.

In May of 2007, independent observers corroborated signs of torture of prisoners in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister didn't issue any apology for his previous rhetoric or allegations about patriotism. Again, the story died.

At the end of last week, a new kerfluffle about the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan emerged as the main story. I was going to write about it today until I saw the House Leader Peter Van Loan on Canada AM.

In Canada, the House Leader is the "point man" in each party for that party's day-to-day agenda. Every opposition party has one. They normally debate points of order and make sure the party's agenda moves forward and that kind of thing.

On the most recent Afghanistan prisoner issue, the Prime Minister has been largely silent so far. In his stead, he's sent his director of communications and his house leader to speak. The director of communications might be tomorrow's blog. But the house leader trumped her this morning.

So let's review what happened this morning. Today on Canada AM, Van Loan characterized the opposition parties' concern about torture of prisoners in Afghanistan as "their favourite subject," "concern for Taliban prisoners." In contrast, he characterizes the Conservative priority as the "safety and security" of Canadian forces. In other words, the Conservatives are patriotic, and the opposition parties care more about the enemy than about "our own."

Canada AM of course put these highly quotable quotes on their web site. However--thankfully--the interviewers didn't otherwise take the bait. They didn't follow up with Van Loan to "clarify" his statement about patriotism, and they didn't ask NDP Chair Jack Layton about it when they interviewed him. So far, they haven't fueled the fire, as Bill O'Reilly and Wolf Blitzer and similar "reporters" in the U.S. would have done.

It's entirely possible that Canada AM, largely a morning entertainment show, is considered an inappropriate forum for those types of questions and that type of debate. It's possible that the hosts, who spend a lot of time interviewing experts in fitness, recipes, and robots, don't get to ask their own questions or didn't think to follow up. Had those statements been made to Peter Mansbridge on CBC, Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert and others on the At Issue panel might have had a field day with them. (It could still happen.) Still. Nobody this morning reacted much. Whew.

Unfortunately, the lack of reaction also means that no one--at least no one in the Canadian media--seems to be calling the Conservative government on this rhetorical strategy, a strategy that even I, the bystander of all bystanders in this debate, find insulting. It's difficult to know whether ignoring this rhetorical strategy--if you disagree with me, you're not patriotic--is smarter than responding with the outrage it deserves.

The absolute MOST patriotic action any person or party can take is to debate a public issue fairly and clearly, and the treatment of prisoners is certainly a debatable issue. Quashing that debate, as Bush/Rove/Cheney did in the U.S. immediately post-9/11 using a similarly offensive rhetorical strategy, leads you to wantonly invade countries simply because you want to show up Daddy.

In the U.S., politicians--including all of those now running for the Democratic nomination as well as John McCain, the likely Republican nominee and a POW--did NOT address these allegations of lack of patriotism. (Let's also remember that these allegations were made by a president who at best bought his way out of military service and who is directing those allegations at people who did their service. The sheer nerve of this attack really boggles the mind.)

Still, none of the politicians responded with outrage when the "media" in the U.S. forced the question. Instead, they accepted the way the president framed the debate--"you're fur us or agin' us." Because they accepted it instead of recasting the debate as "you're a lying idiot and we're not," they approved a highly irresponsible military action. Authorizing the war has left them apparently feeling that they have no choice but to continue irresponsibly throwing money and lives after it.

So, class, what can we learn from what happened south of the border? A couple of things.

First, it's fairly obvious that ignoring allegations of "you care more about the enemy than about our own," when the media forces the issue into the open, doesn't lead to good things.

Second, if that's true, then Canada is avoiding this antagonistic rhetoric largely because the media either refuses to force the issue or isn't smart enough to force the issue. We have to believe it's the former; the latter is too depressing.

And finally: the absolute BEST way to protect the safety and security of "our own" is to ensure that ALL prisoners and political detainees EVERYWHERE are treated according to conventions. As I said above, U.S. soldiers who are captured can't hope to be treated more fairly than their own country treats it prisoners.

And one of the BEST ways to ensure that countries, including Canada and Afghanistan, treat prisoners according to conventions is fair and honest debate.

Nothing jeopardizes the safety and security of "our own" more than hiding behind a curtain of silence, decorated with paintings of moving fingers writing "I'm more patriotic than you are."

Are you listening, Prime Minister?

Class dismissed.