Question Time for Americans?

So, I see that several Americans from across the political spectrum have launched a site and petition to demand a British-style 'Question Time' for their politicians.

This, of course, was spurred on by Obama's appearance at a GOP meeting last week in which (with the cameras rolling throughout) he answered their questions/talking points and scolded them for not being bipartisan.

I have to say that I felt a bit sorry for my American cousins after seeing their glowing responses to that bit of theatre: so desperate for their president to actually fight for them after a year of capitulating to and rolling over and playing dead for the Republicans and the nefarious, apparently all-powerful Blue Dog Democrats (and Scary Joe Lieberman, of course).

I should add that Obama actually did fight for something last year:

Despite deals cut late Thursday to wrap up the fiscal 2009 war supplemental, some House Democrats say they do not yet have enough support to pass the final bill.
[...]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the antiwar Democrats, said the White House is threatening to withdraw support from freshmen who oppose the bill, saying “you’ll never hear from us again.”

So, yes, there was that.

Anyway, now that Americans have gotten a taste of the back and forth that can occur between the parties in a public Q&A session, it seems they think that more of this can actually be a useful thing.

From the petition site:

We live in a world that increasingly demands more dialogue than monologue. President Obama’s January 29th question-and-answer session with Republican leaders gave the public a remarkable window into the state of our union and governing process. It was riveting and educational. The exchanges were substantive, civil and candid. And in a rare break from our modern politics, sharp differences between elected leaders were on full public display without rancor or ridicule.

It's cute that they think regular 'Question Time' (or 'Question Period' a la Canada) sessions would be devoid of "rancor or ridicule'. I wonder how many of those signatories have ever actually watched our partisan grandstanding popcornfests. If what they're looking for is something 'substantive, civil and candid', they're barking up the wrong tree - no matter what kind of political dogs they might be.

I enjoy our parliament's Answer the Damn Question period because the entertainment value is priceless for a political junkie. But let's not pretend that it's anything other than one gigantic food fight, sans the actual food, or that it encompasses anything more substantial than the opportunity for political foes to take verbal jabs at each other for an hour a day all the while hoping that one of their pathetic gotcha performances makes it on the evening news.

Those who are pushing for this in the US would do well to simply look at the history of our parliament's experiences with this kabuki and the disdain many Canadians have for the lack of decorum and disrespect for the house that we have witnessed for decades.

Question Time/Question Period is not the answer.

Be careful what you wish for.
 

Pick a Hill to Die On, Iggy

I find it amusing, that when the opposition party is in opposition, that the media are constantly pressing us to lay out our wares - constantly 'put your big ideas in front of the public'. The reality is the government has been elected to govern and we will come out with a platform when Canadians are ready to make their choice because we're into a general election. Mr Ignatieff has been very forthright in speeches on foreign policy, on energy and the environment and on a range of areas, including most recently issues affecting women - the general principles of which he's following. Now, the big bold ideas that you want to see, the brilliant strokes that the media are looking for - why would we lay those out? Why would we telegraph those to a government that has, in its unbelievably cynical, partisan way, taken everything that's said, twisted it out of context, perverted the meaning, perverted the message? Why would we do that in advance when we haven't got a level playing field to lay those out?

- Alfred Apps, President of the Liberal Party on CTV's Question Period responding to a question by Craig Oliver about the lack of a Liberal Party platform

Flashback: Ignatieff wants campaign platform by June [2009]

Newly confirmed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff wants his party to have a campaign platform ready for June, but says that doesn't mean he's looking for a spring election.

"I've told my people I want a platform in June," he said at a news conference Sunday.

"And don't derive electoral timetables from that," he added. "You asked me a question, I'm giving you an answer. I'm not playing games with you."

It's clear that the Liberal party has become gun-shy after Stephane Dion was trounced last year by the Cons over his carbon tax plan.

What Mr Apps fails to grasp is that the release of a Liberal party platform is a necessity if he wants the public to distinguish between his party, the Cons and the NDP. This isn't about what's good for the media or the Harper government. His reason for the party withholding its platform simply makes him - and Iggy - look weak - especially since Ignatieff had promised a platform by a June deadline that has long come and gone. And if he'd been paying attention, Apps would know that Ignatieff's speeches, which he seems to think provide the public with a clear view of his policies, are about as popular as his sagging poll numbers. (19%? Even Dick Cheney has better numbers than that).

Apps may find it "amusing" but I doubt he'll be laughing when the Liberals lose yet another election thanks to the party disarray that has ensued since Ignatieff was crowned.
 

Does O'Connor Know Where the Missing Detainees Are?

Bolstered by a few cagey smirks defence minister O'Connor, in response to questions by Jane Taber on Sunday's CTV Question Period about the fate of the missing Afghan detainees, responded with vague hints that he actually knows where they are. "Everybody can be found", O'Connor said, adding that we should "wait until the end of the investigation" to find out what happened to them. "We'll wait to see whether they're missing or not", O'Connor added.

What exactly does that mean? And if he knows where they are, why isn't he admitting that? It would seem to be incredibly naive to publicly imply that the DoD knows where the detainees are. If they actually escaped custody to run from their alleged crimes, they've now been told that this defence minister has a handle on their location. If they are in hiding because they were abused while being transferred and/or detained, they've now been told that their location is unsafe. Either way, they will most likely disappear once again which will only frustrate any investigation into their alleged abuse by Canadian forces.

The only other possibility is that the DoD has them in custody somewhere and isn't admitting it.

O'Connor is far too comfortable with how alleged suspects are treated once Canadian forces hand them over to the Afghanistan government.

"We're there in support of the Afghan government and when we get insurgents who break the law we hand them over to the authorities," O'Connor said.

First of all, it's not up to the Canadian forces to decide who has broken the law. That's the role of the courts.

"We want assurances that they're treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I know according to the rules of law they don't have to be treated under the Geneva Convention, but we insist that they are. We are reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor this and now we're asking the human rights organization to also do it."

The problem with relying on the ICRC is that it is not required to make its findings public. That problem was highlighted when a confidential report about the treatment of detainees at Gitmo was leaked in 2004. So, while O'Connor says he can be assured by ICRC reports, we have no way of knowing about the real circumstances facing detainees who are handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops. O'Connor also added that he wasn't aware of any reports back from the ICRC about the detainees who have been handed over to Afghan authorities but he added that the ICRC is "quite pleased" with what the Canadian forces do. So, which is it, O'Connor? Is the ICRC reporting to you or isn't it?

Furthermore, O'Connor seems to be blissfully unaware of what the Canada-Afghanistan agreement says:

The Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that detainees will not be tortured by Afghan forces. Canadian officials are not given the right to monitor detainees after they have been transferred. And although the agreement anticipates that detainees first held by Canada may be moved onwards to the custody of a third country it fails to provide safeguards to ensure they will not be subject to torture or even execution. The previous practice by Canadian Forces of transferring detainees directly to United States forces led to serious human rights violations in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The clear possibility of further transfer of detainees to United States custody remains under the current agreement...

In addition, Afghanistan's human rights organization was only brought into the picture last week when a secret agreement was signed after the news of the alleged abuse of the 3 detainees was splashed all over the front pages and following Amnesty International's call for a judicial review, although O'Connor said on Question Period that this agreement had been in the works since June 2006. That's hardly comforting. Why would it have taken so long to process such a straightforward agreement with a body concerned about human rights?

This just doesn't add up and Canadians, along with those in Afghanistan who are being tranferred over to the authorities there, deserve far more than this continual deception being fostered by this defence minister. I have a feeling that once these 4 investigations into what happened to these Afghan detainees wrap up, O'Connor won't come out smelling like the rose he seems to think he is.