ValueSubtracted

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF

Okay yeah, I fully agree that they could have started much sooner. Getting things done quickly isn't exactly the Liberals' forté.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I guess I'm not sure what you think he should have done differently?

Like, this whole situation is a mess, and there's a mix of possible "foreign influence" in play, ranging from "unsuccessful attempts" to "this person is an active foreign agent," and it's all based on classified CSIS intelligence. And these people are still elected officials, so it's there more that even could be done beyond perhaps booting them out of caucus?

Surely we can agree that the situation isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

There's already another article posted about this, but I would think the concerns around releasing classified information are self-evident.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 3 days ago (6 children)

The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.

I don't think they've said this?

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All right, I have to ask - what did you do to get the scale right? It looks like you nailed it.

Poilievre and the Conservatives have been calling on Trudeau to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.

But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.

"Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence," RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.

When CBC News later asked Flynn whether the names could be released in the House of Commons, where MPs enjoy certain legal protections, he suggested that could be a legal grey area.

"That's a question that should be asked, due to the complexities of parliamentary privilege, of a legal expert," Flynn said.

Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS national security analyst, said there are several reasons why national security agencies wouldn't want the names made public — starting with the fact that it could compromise ongoing investigations.

"We don't want foreign governments knowing how we are collecting information. That's why we protect our sources and methods," she said.

squints

Oh yeah, you're right.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 3 days ago (8 children)

“Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.

There would be no "partisan turn" to take if he would meet this basic expectation.

 

"Importantly, these changes include strict limits on disclosing personal information about Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or any individuals in Canada, as well as the names of Canadian entities or corporations, without additional authorizations," said Townsend.

"CSIS welcomes any opportunity to brief elected officials about the threat landscape at any classification that is appropriate."

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Phaser. Lightphaser.

 

Sat, Oct 19, 2024

2:30 PM - 4:00 PM ET

Empire Stage

The fan-favorite Star Trek universe panel returns to New York Comic Con, featuring exclusive sneak peeks and conversations with cast members and producers from Star Trek: Lower Decks, Star Trek: Section 31 and more. Plus, more exciting reveals and surprises for fans in attendance that you won't want to miss!

You can livestream this panel for free or watch it on demand with a Popverse membership: https://bit.ly/3Nj6kkp

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 5 points 4 days ago (10 children)

When questioned by Conservative Party lawyer Nando De Luca, Trudeau also said the names of Liberal parliamentarians and individuals from other parties are on the list of parliamentarians at risk of being compromised by foreign interference.

Wow, what a cudgel.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 19 points 5 days ago (6 children)

That would be irresponsible - this is intelligence, not evidence that would hold up in court.

Trudeau himself says that some of the intel could be wrong.

Of course, if they have irrefutable evidence regarding any individuals, I agree with you.

 

Poilievre's decision not to go through security screening means that no one in the party is in a position to act on the intelligence or challenge its accuracy, said Trudeau.

"The decision by the leader of the Conservative Party to not get those classified briefings means that nobody in his party, not him, nobody in a position of power knows the names of these individuals and can take appropriate action," he said.

"It also means nobody is there to stand up for those individuals if the intelligence is shoddy or incomplete or just allegations from a single source."

view more: ‹ prev next ›