How Did Peter MacKay and Other Parliamentarians React the Day After
Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell’s Threatens Lethal Military
Force and Capital Punishment on the Anniversary of Pearl Harbor?
© 2009 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.
Barrister & Solicitor
Nobody can sit in a room full of a hundred plus people who know you to be enthusiastically evil and driven by hostility and perversion and hate you to the core and not be affected. Those with intellectual substance and moral fiber feel the accountability heat and amend offending behavior immediately. By sharp contrast, the “culture of entitlement” trans-generationally corrupt and die-hard militarized totalitarians do the opposite. They treat the condemnation like water off a duck’s back; and when back home in safe territory stick their head in the sand like an ostrich and continue as if it’s business as usual’. That’s exactly what happened on December 7th when Peter MacKay who was hit with a gatling-gun of ‘stand down your military posture or face execution’ coercive diplomacy and returned to Canada the following day and took multiple queries during Question Period.
.
Presidents Bush and Obama and their respective inner core know how to deal with totalitarians, dictators and tyrants. And they know what international law and protocol require before moving to oust them. General Powell and Secretary Clinton and all of the many dozen Washington and American movers and shakers present when the iconic statesman was being honored may have had a faint hope that eloquent words appealing to Canada’s Foreign Minister’s humanity would be efficacious. But that was dispelled when he returned home and back in his element – back in the vacuous intellect and ethics zone – back in and amongst members of his evil worshiping cult.
While he was being peppered with questions about allegations Canada’s military tortured Afghanistan detainees he engaged in geo-politics: employing the lexicon over and over to reiterate what’s been the non-transparent policy of the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal triangle of power and wealth for forty years – unshakable love of and marriage to China, perpetuation and protection of its de facto governance status, the militarization of the country to advance Beijing’s global hegemony policy and the institutionalization of enslaving human experimentation, torture and nihilism-causing deprivation that leads to surreptitious assassination without culpability.
He had full House of Commons support. Behind him Jim O’Connor and Jay Hill occasionally employed the coalition’s confidential language. Hill effected a protracted Execution Maneuver when MacKay referred to the “justice system” – interpreted to be a death threat against the Custodian Chief.
Detailed notes kept of contacts with MPs during the dissemination initiative and their reactions indicate his office was “hostile” when approached.
And Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt, who’d used the lexicon to utter a death threat against the Custodian Chief Executive on February 12, 2009, did so again to elevate MacKay’s remark that the Government has been “clear [and] consistent” on the Afghan issue to a diplomatic communiqué that it remains fully committed to Chinada’s domestic and foreign agenda. Her first choice of lexiconic constituents: the nose-rubbing Clooney Maneuver – another instance of what was documented in Environment Minister & Lawyer Jim Prentice Literally Thumbs His Nose at Covert Regime Change and International Justice and Canadian Parliamentarian Yvon Lévesque Takes Nose Thumbing to a Whole New Level of Disgust and Generates More Proof of the Political Culture of Pubescence in the Halls of Federal Power; or The Impertinence of Arrogance: Part III.
By sharp contrast Diane Ablonczy, Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, employed the language to confirm what some members of cabinet and the House of Commons believe, namely that (i) what the coalition and Custodian Chief are doing is “marvellous [and] spectacular”; (ii) the Custodian Chief is the constitutionally and internationally legitimate interim leader of Canada’s government; and (iii) the Fiefdom Indictment and coalition concerns and fears are not based on “ridiculous, unfounded allegations”. At least it appears this is what she intended to articulate.
What MacKay was seeking to geo-politically communicate is not straightforward. He executed so many embellished Condi Maneuvers – named after his former counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who the Custodian Chief served under as her Deputy beginning on April 10, 2007 (the day after the Triggering Event), they could have been a subconscious and nervous reaction; having been put on notice to his face that he and the rest of the Chinada High Command face the death penalty. Or he may well have been articulating with as much political force as possible that it’s All or Nothing as that phraseology is understood within the diplomatic corridor. That certainly seems the more reasonable interpretation; for its first use comes as soon as he rises to field a question from the Chinada-complicit former Attorney General of British Columbia. It was timed to “We have been clear”.
He also employs it to repeatedly make the point that he and the government only act on geo-political matters that are based on “credible evidence”, seemingly suggesting that what’s been proffered about Chinese de facto governance, militarization, enslaving human experimentation, torture, economy monopolization and wealth plundering to fund global hegemony and the imminence of covert regime change and the ‘Iron Fist’ prosecution system has absolutely no merit.
And, most revealing of his total disconnect with reality, he also said for the diplomatic record that what he experienced the day before that would haunt every normal person to the core didn't happen. That's clinical and blinding denial in its most acute form. Hard core addicts suffer the same affliction. Since he and the rest of his ilk are addicted to power, wealth and schadenfreude, it's logical he didn't appreciate what was communicated so forthrightly the day before, nor all the coercive diplomacy documented in the archive back to early 2006.
Another possibility is he's suffering from an ideology that's permeated the senior Bar and described in Tracing Back A Decade and a Half of Stultification Within the Legal Profession, Administration of Justice and Government That Perpetuated the Last Democratic Fiefdom.
The argument can be made the Powell ceremony finally drilled home what’s in store for Chinada die-hards if there’s no immediate capitulation and he was agreeing on the diplomatic record the evidence on these listed matters is undeniable. However, by the date of this supplemental’s publication, a week later, there was no change in the Custodian Chief’s circumstances; leading to the conclusion the in-your-face threats were not efficacious.
If he's fully functioning intellectually, then this image best describes his perceptions and attitude in the face of the death penalty:
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):
Will the government call a public inquiry [on Afghanistan torture] so that Canadians can learn the truth?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we have been [4:22: British Parlia M.] clear. We have been credible. Whenever presented with credible information, we have acted [end]. We have invested in improving the justice system in Afghanistan [4:32: Jay Hill: Execution M. X2]. We have invested in the prison system. We continue to make improvements in human rights, in Afghanistan. We inherited a flawed transfer arrangement. We improved that.
[...]
Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.):
Why are the Conservatives attempting to discredit these two front line Canadian soldiers? Why are they calling them liars?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are not. We are applauding them. We are encouraging all Canadian Forces personnel to continue to do what they always do, which is marvellous, which is spectacular, [15:31: Ablonczy: Diaz M. X2] something we are all very proud of.
[...]
Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, the Chief of the Defence Staff is not only a soldier but the top soldier. [16:52: Ablonczy: Colbert M.; Diaz M.; Brooke M.] I will take his word. He said that what Canadian soldiers “did on the ground was just basic routine questioning”.
[...]
Our first priority was to clean up the mess that we had inherited [18:10: Condi M. X2]. That was to improve the transfer arrangement. We have been clear and consistent in telling the House, committees and everyone that we [Condi M.] acted upon [Condi M.] credible evidence that was presented to us at the time, two and a half or three years ago.
We have been clear. We have been consistent. We acted at the time. We continue to act and we rely on the credible information we receive [Condi M.] from senior diplomats and [Condi M.] senior military. We have heard them all testify. They all corroborate the government's position. Why would they not? They were acting at the time. We were acting on their advice. I wish the hon. member would take the advice of the individuals closest to this issue.
[...]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):
Does the government realize that, instead of imposing a code of silence on our diplomats, it should make public any information that could shed some light on the torture of Afghan prisoners?
[...]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
We act on hard evidence [21:09: Condi M.]. We act on allegations that can be proven. We made changes and improved it. We continue to do so.
[...]
Why would members opposite not accept the evidence given by those credible individuals closest to the ground, closest to the mission, all giving advice to the government upon which we acted to improve the situation in Afghanistan?
[22:33: Condi M.] It is a straightforward situation. Those members refuse to accept it.
[...]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):
Does the government realize that by refusing to act, despite everything it knew, it violated the Geneva convention in 2006 and continued to do so until May 2007?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, those are more ridiculous, unfounded allegations [24:28: Ablonczy: Diaz M.] that cannot be substantiated.
When our military and when our diplomats provide information to the government, we act on that advice. [24:33: Raitt: protracted Cl.M.] When we have credible sustained information or evidence, we take appropriate action.
With respect to the Red Cross, this was a case with notifications to the Red Cross about prisoner transfers. While lengthy delays in the notification to the Red Cross occurred under the previous government, we made changes to improve that, just as we did with the transfer arrangement, just as we did with [24:53: Condi M. X2] investing in our military, just as we did with improving [Condi M.] the mission and picking up where the previous government dropped the ball.
[...]
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):
Will he apologize for his slander of Mr. Colvin and will he resign?
We have [31:35: protracted O-S M.] disputed the credibility of the evidence, not the credibility of the individual. I want to be clear about that. We have acted upon credible evidence. We have heard now from a number of senior bureaucrats, senior military upon whose advice we acted.
[...]
We acted responsibly, we acted decisively. I have been clear, I have been consistent, [32:59: Raitt: Diaz M.] as has General Natynczyk.
