David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Methinks nobody should be surprised to know what really happened if they had bothered to read my other comments and this old news N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/01/canadas-ambassador-to-china-says-meng.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mccallum-out-ambassador-1.4994492
John McCallum out as ambassador to China following controversial comments
McCallum forced to walk back remarks he made regarding Meng Wanzhou's extradition
· CBC News · Posted: Jan 26, 2019 2:45 PM ETJohn McCallum is no longer Canada's ambassador to China.
"Last night I asked for and accepted John McCallum's resignation as Canada's Ambassador to China," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a statement Saturday.
The statement didn't offer a reason for the removal, which comes amid an especially tense time in the Canada-China relationship, but caps off an especially tough week for McCallum after he controversially waded into the extradition request against Meng Wanzhou, an executive with Chinese telecom company Huawei.
On Tuesday McCallum was quoted telling a gathering of Chinese-language journalists in Toronto that he thought she had a strong case to fight extradition to the U.S. and listed several arguments he thought could help her with her case.
On Thursday, he said he misspoke with those statements.
Then, just the next day, he reportedly told StarMetro Vancouver it would be "great for Canada" if the United States dropped their extradition request against the Huawei executive.
It should never have come to this. Justin Trudeau should have fired his ambassador the moment he interfered in this case. Instead, he did nothing and allowed more damage to be done. More weakness and more indecision from Trudeau on China.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Robert Bransfield
So we had many people on the
Right outraged that he was still an ambassador and that the Prime
minister hadn't asked for him to step down. Now that he was requested to
step down, will they acknowledge this or will they simply move on and
attack from another front?
Edward (E) Merij
McCallum is an old hack from
the Chretien days. And Chretien was, of course, connected to JT's Dad.
So McCallum is in a way, connected to P.E.T. There's a bunch of these
old Liberal dinosaurs still hanging around. Maybe the only reason
McCallum got the China file in the first place was to repay political
favours. Who knows. It's all backroom politics which we, the rabble,
will never be privy to.
David R. Amos
@Edward (E) Merij Methinks
folks really should read statement 83 of my lawsuit that I filed in
Federal Court while running in the election of the 42nd Parliament when
Harper was the Prime Minister and Trudeau was just another dude who
became the leader of the third party N'esy Pas?
Edward Waye
Andrew Scheer is a joke!
David R. Amos
@Edward Waye "Andrew Scheer is a joke!"
YUP but methinks he is just one clown in a rather silly circus N'esy Pas?
YUP but methinks he is just one clown in a rather silly circus N'esy Pas?
John Good
Must be a nice cold Canadian day Lots of conservatives. stuck inside with nothing to do or say
David R. Amos
@John Good Methinks folks must have noticed a pack of upset liberals too N'esy Pas?
Rob Frost
Nice to see Trudeau acting on Scheers recommendation.
David R. Amos
@Rob Frost "Nice to see Trudeau acting on Scheers recommendation."
Methinks nobody should be surprised to know what really happened if they had bothered to read my other comments and this old news N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston-canada-offered-to-aid-iraq-invasion-wikileaks-1.1062501
Methinks nobody should be surprised to know what really happened if they had bothered to read my other comments and this old news N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston-canada-offered-to-aid-iraq-invasion-wikileaks-1.1062501
Carson Brook
@David R. Amos
interesting - others have suggested readers google David R. Amos ....
and I add the voice "yes, do that" where would there be any justification in 'disabling' a good useful suggestion which gets posted by others
interesting - others have suggested readers google David R. Amos ....
and I add the voice "yes, do that" where would there be any justification in 'disabling' a good useful suggestion which gets posted by others
David R. Amos
@Carson Brook "interesting - others have suggested readers google David R. Amos "
Methinks you would never have voted for me either particularly when I don't exist to most readers N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
Methinks you would never have voted for me either particularly when I don't exist to most readers N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
Stephen George
@David R. Amos
PLease go away.
PLease go away.
Rob Frost
I hope Canadians fire Trudeau in October. There can't be enough liberal firings. By the way, thanks for all the debt Trudeau.
Doug Allan
@Wayne Underhill
Of course not. Their economic stimulus program kept Canada having the strongest economy of the G8. And the Liberals and NDP both complained loudly (at the time) that Harper wasn’t spending enough. But Liberals and NDPers want you to forget that.
Of course not. Their economic stimulus program kept Canada having the strongest economy of the G8. And the Liberals and NDP both complained loudly (at the time) that Harper wasn’t spending enough. But Liberals and NDPers want you to forget that.
David R. Amos
@Doug Allan "But Liberals and NDPers want you to forget that"
.Methinks what the former Speaker of of the House aka Harper 2.0 should be worried about is that I have a very long memory and the Federal Court keeps pretty good records in its docket N'esy Pas?
.Methinks what the former Speaker of of the House aka Harper 2.0 should be worried about is that I have a very long memory and the Federal Court keeps pretty good records in its docket N'esy Pas?
Reid Fleming
In 2019, Canadian voters will ask for, and accept, Trudeau's resignation...
David R. Amos
@Reid Fleming Methinks you seem bitter about something N'esy Pas?
Barry Marshall
Should have done it right after he put his foot in his mouth and not after backtracking.
David R. Amos
@Barry Marshall YUP
John Smith
I asked for but has not received Trudeau's resignation. Why not? He is the worst PM in the annals of Canadian history.
Dennis Regan
@John Smith
You've never heard of Harper? Know nothing about him?
You've never heard of Harper? Know nothing about him?
David R. Amos
@Dennis Regan "You've never heard of Harper? Know nothing about him?"
Methinks everybody knows why I ran against Harper and his cohorts Thats why dudes such as Mr George want me to go away or perhaps its because I look like your avatar N'esy Pas?
Methinks everybody knows why I ran against Harper and his cohorts Thats why dudes such as Mr George want me to go away or perhaps its because I look like your avatar N'esy Pas?
David R. Amos
@John Smith Methinks Louis
Riel and many other ghosts would agree the John A MacDonald takes the
cake in the regards to being the worst PM in the annals of Canadian
history N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP10CH4PA4LE.html
"Charged with high treason for leading the North West Rebellion, Riel wanted to use the trial as a platform to vindicate himself.
"I was not taken prisoner. I surrendered on purpose. I want to be judged on the merits of my actions. ... From the time of my arrival in Saskatchewan, I worked peacefully ... We didnt make any aggressive military moves. ... In Batoche we defended ourselves."
In turn, the government did all it could to muzzle the Métis leader. It wished to dispose of the man who had led two uprisings in the countrys brief history.
The trial was moved from Winnipeg to Regina when the government discovered that a Manitoba jury could be half Métis. Of the six men on the Regina jury - only one spoke French.
Prime Minister John A. Macdonald decided to charge Riel with high treason, based on an obscure British law dating to the year 1342. This law carried the death the penalty whereas Canadas treason law did not. "
https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP10CH4PA4LE.html
"Charged with high treason for leading the North West Rebellion, Riel wanted to use the trial as a platform to vindicate himself.
"I was not taken prisoner. I surrendered on purpose. I want to be judged on the merits of my actions. ... From the time of my arrival in Saskatchewan, I worked peacefully ... We didnt make any aggressive military moves. ... In Batoche we defended ourselves."
In turn, the government did all it could to muzzle the Métis leader. It wished to dispose of the man who had led two uprisings in the countrys brief history.
The trial was moved from Winnipeg to Regina when the government discovered that a Manitoba jury could be half Métis. Of the six men on the Regina jury - only one spoke French.
Prime Minister John A. Macdonald decided to charge Riel with high treason, based on an obscure British law dating to the year 1342. This law carried the death the penalty whereas Canadas treason law did not. "
Scott Wilson
Just as I suspected John
McCallum didn't even consult with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before
he made a statement on a very sensitive issue and made the situation
even more political than it already was.
Chris Harris
@Scott Wilson
Consult with Trudeau? What would be the use of that? Trudeau's a checker player at a world class chess tournament. Can't think beyond the next step, only good for apologizing on behalf of other people, who are almost deceased.
Consult with Trudeau? What would be the use of that? Trudeau's a checker player at a world class chess tournament. Can't think beyond the next step, only good for apologizing on behalf of other people, who are almost deceased.
David R. Amos
@Chris Harris "Trudeau's a checker player at a world class chess tournament."
Methinks you hold him in higher regard than a lot of other commenters including yours truly N'esy Pas?
Methinks you hold him in higher regard than a lot of other commenters including yours truly N'esy Pas?
Rory Cain
What a bumbling mess leadership is in this country. It is hard to believe this is the best we have.
David R. Amos
@Rory Cain Methinks the
lawyers Maxime Bernier and Jagmeet Singh and many other political
pundits would agree that Harper 2.0 is no better than Trudeau the
Younger N'esy Pas?
Trudeau dismisses calls to fire McCallum as envoy to China after eyebrow-raising comments
'Making a change would not help release those Canadians a day sooner,' PM says
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the Liberal government's focus is on securing the release of two Canadians arbitrarily detained in China, and he doesn't believe swapping out Canada's ambassador in Beijing after his eyebrow-raising comments about the Meng Wanzhou case will aid in that effort.
Speaking to reporters after an announcement in New Brunswick, Trudeau said Thursday the Huawei executive will have a fair shot in B.C. court to "enthusiastically" fight an American request for extradition. But he reiterated Canada is committed to the rule of law and legal proceedings free of political interference.
On Tuesday, John McCallum, the former Liberal cabinet minister turned ambassador to China, suggested Meng has a "strong case" to make against extradition and he enumerated defences her counsel could rely on to secure her freedom.
Trudeau batted away a suggestion, first floated by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, that McCallum's comments warrant his firing.
"Our focus is entirely on getting those Canadians home safe and making sure that all their rights are respected ... Making a change would not help release those Canadians a day sooner."
"John McCallum, as ambassador, has a very special place in this whole dynamic. He's not someone with an opinion, or a professor opining," Scheer said in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics.
"If I were prime minister I would fire John McCallum," Scheer added, saying such a move would bolster Canada's claim that it takes the independence of its judicial system seriously.
One of McCallum's predecessors, former ambassador to China David Mulroney, said McCallum's comments on the strength of Meng's defence against U.S. claims were "almost impossible to understand."
"The prime minister needs to clearly and specifically repudiate the comments [by McCallum], which are already being spun by the Chinese," Mulroney tweeted after Trudeau said Thursday he would not move to replace McCallum after his controversial intervention.
"We believe that anyone with normal judgment could see through the nature of this case. We hope that the Canadian side will make the right choice instead of risking endangering itself for other's gains.
"It is very easy to understand. Canada and the U.S. have abused their bilateral extradition treaty and seriously violated the safety and legitimate and legal rights and interests of the Chinese citizen. We have made our stern position clear," Hua Chunying said in Mandarin. "In order to change the current situation, the Canadian side needs to face up to the issue squarely, take China's solemn concerns seriously, and take measures to correct its mistakes."
Schellenberg to appeal death sentence
Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been held in China for over six weeks; Trudeau has described their detentions as "arbitrary" acts of retaliation over Meng's arrest. Chinese officials have said only that the two men are accused of "engaging in activities endangering national security."
Another Canadian, Robert Schellenberg, recently had his 15-year sentence for drug smuggling changed to a death sentence by a Chinese court after a retrial.
Schellenberg's lawyer, Zhang Dongshuo, told CBC News Thursday that he will file an appeal on his client's behalf this Sunday, just a day before a court-imposed deadline for an appeal passes.
Zhang has said the Chinese government was out of line in ordering the hasty retrial after Meng was first arrested in Vancouver.
"We disagree with the verdict, of course," Zhang said. "We don't believe there is enough evidence to justify the sentence [of death], even if everything the prosecution presented were true."
The appeal could take months to adjudicate. If it's rejected, Schellenberg's death sentence would then go to China's top court for approval.
About the Author
With files from the CBC's Saša Petricic
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Methinks many politicians can recall that this is not the first time John McCallum has been in diplomatic hot water N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/01/canadas-ambassador-to-china-says-meng.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston-canada-offered-to-aid-iraq-invasion-wikileaks-1.1062501
WESTON: Canada offered to aid Iraq invasion: WikiLeaks
The
same day Canada publicly refused to join the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq, a high-ranking Canadian official was secretly promising the
Americans clandestine military support for the fiercely controversial
operation.
The revelation that Canadian forces may have secretly participated in the invasion of Iraq is contained in a classified U.S. diplomatic memo obtained exclusively by CBC News from the whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
On March 17, 2003, two days before U.S. warplanes launched their attack on Baghdad, prime minister Jean Chrétien told the House of Commons that Canadian forces would not be joining what the administration of then U.S. president George W. Bush dubbed the "coalition of the willing."
Chrétien's apparent refusal to back the Bush administration's invasion, purportedly launched to seize weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein (which were never found), was hugely popular in Canada, widely hailed as nothing less than a defining moment of national sovereignty.
Greg Weston
But
even as Chrétien told the Commons that Canada wouldn't participate in
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their
U.S. counterparts something entirely different.
The classified U.S. document obtained from WikiLeaks shows senior Canadian officials met that same day with high-ranking American and British diplomats at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa.
The confidential note, written by a U.S. diplomat at the gathering, states that Foreign Affairs official James Wright waited until after the official meeting to impart the most important news of all.
According to the U.S. account, Wright "emphasized" that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be "discreetly" put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath.
At that time, Canada had warships, aircraft and over 1,200 naval personnel already in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, intercepting potential militant vessels and providing safe escort to other ships as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the post-Sept. 11, 2001, multinational war on terrorism.
The U.S. briefing note states: "Following the meeting, political director Jim Wright emphasized that, despite public statements that the Canadian assets in the Straits of Hormuz will remain in the region exclusively to support Enduring Freedom, they will also be available to provide escort services in the Straits and will otherwise be discreetly useful to the military effort.
"The two ships in the Straits now are being augmented by two more en route, and there are patrol and supply aircraft in the U.A.E. [United Arab Emirates] which are also prepared to 'be useful.'
"This message tracks with others we have heard," the U.S. diplomat wrote in his briefing note to State Department bosses in Washington.
"While for domestic political reasons… the GOC [Government of Canada] has decided not to join in a U.S. coalition of the willing,… they are also prepared to be as helpful as possible in the military margins."
The original U.S. briefing cable, dated the day of the meeting, was marked "unclassified." Two days later, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa issued an urgent internal notice to "please destroy previous cable," replacing it with the same message but marked "confidential."
The Canadian official involved, James Wright, is now Canada's high commissioner in London. He declined to comment for this report.
The U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time, Paul Cellucci, says he couldn't be at the meeting in Ottawa that day — he was stranded in a snowstorm in the U.S. — but the version of events in the leaked memo "sounds right."
"The message from the Canadians was pretty clear," Cellucci told CBC News. "We are not putting boots on the ground in Iraq. We will say good things about the United States and not-so-good things about Saddam Hussein."
And finally: "We will keep our ships in the Persian Gulf helping in the war on terror — and any way else we can help."
Exactly what that meant for the Canadian naval ships and surveillance aircraft in the Gulf region at the time — and how much they ultimately became involved in the Iraq war — remains a matter of considerable debate.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the duties of the Canadian ships had been mainly to protect other vessels from attacks by militants and to intercept craft suspected of gun-running and other potentially militant-related activities.
The issue is what, if anything, changed after the Chrétien government decreed those ships and aircraft couldn't be involved in intercepting vessels connected to the Iraq war.
Three
months before the Iraq invasion, the then Canadian defence minister
John McCallum, right, met with U.S. counterpart Donald Rumsfeld, left,
whose diplomats had told him to keep his expectations 'modest' for what
Canada might contribute to the war. ((CBC))
Eugene
Lang, chief of staff to then defence minister John McCallum, says there
was no end of internal debate over whether the Canadian Forces were
being put into a mission impossible.
"How do you know if something is connected to terrorism or Iraq? When you are intercepting unknown boats, you don't know what you have taken over until you have taken it over."
Lang says that after "painful" consultations with federal lawyers, the Department of National Defence issued Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"But who knows whether in fact we were doing things indirectly for Iraqi Freedom? It is quite possible."
McCallum's former chief recalled a bitter internal battle over whether to pull the Canadian ships out of the Gulf altogether to avoid any confusion.
"For a long time, the [Canadian] military pushed really hard not to be in Afghanistan, and instead be part of a full-blown boots-on-the-ground Iraq invasion," Lang said.
"So the military was dead set against pulling out [of the Gulf], and in the end the government decided we would stay mainly, I think, for Canada-U.S. relations."
Former defence minister McCallum recalls he and his officials having "extremely long and detailed meetings to make sure that we were not in fact committing to help the war in Iraq."
"Now, what happens on the high seas is not something I can prove or disprove, but those were the orders that the military had."
Ironically, after all the fuss, the Americans didn't seem to care whether Canada contributed a lot of military might to the Iraq mission.
A former senior Canadian bureaucrat said: "The Americans knew we were stretched to the limit on the military side, and they really just wanted a political endorsement of their plan to go into Iraq."
Former U.S. ambassador Cellucci concurred: "We were looking for moral support. That's all we were looking for.… We were looking for 'we support the Americans.' "
Flight
deck crew watch as a U.S. F/A-18 Hornet launches from an aircraft
carrier in the Persian Gulf one week into the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Canada had two warships nearby at the time, and secretly offered to make
them 'useful' to the U.S., a leaked American document says. ((Steve Helber/Associated Press))
Then
defence minister McCallum met with his counterpart, U.S. defence
secretary Donald Rumsfeld, three months before the Iraq invasion.
McCallum recalls Rumsfeld never even mentioned Canada's possible
military contribution to Iraq.
A U.S. diplomatic briefing note prepared for Rumsfeld prior to the meeting states: "As for what Canada might bring to the table, our expectations should be modest."
The memo, also obtained by CBC News from WikiLeaks, goes on to say: "Canada probably would need to use assets currently devoted to Operation Enduring Freedom, including a naval task group [in the Gulf] and patrol and transport aircraft."
If the secret U.S. memos cast doubts on Canada's status as a refusenik of the Iraq war, the public also didn't exactly get the whole truth about a group of Canadian soldiers the government admitted were in Iraq.
From the outset, the Chrétien government said a "few" Canadian soldiers embedded with the U.S. and British militaries as exchange officers would be allowed to remain in their positions, even if they wound up in Iraq.
While the revelation caused a ruckus in Parliament, it all sounded relatively innocuous at the time.
But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command, including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff, who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait.
The Department of National Defence refused to comment on Natynczyk's role, if any, in the invasion of Iraq.
The revelation that Canadian forces may have secretly participated in the invasion of Iraq is contained in a classified U.S. diplomatic memo obtained exclusively by CBC News from the whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
On March 17, 2003, two days before U.S. warplanes launched their attack on Baghdad, prime minister Jean Chrétien told the House of Commons that Canadian forces would not be joining what the administration of then U.S. president George W. Bush dubbed the "coalition of the willing."
Chrétien's apparent refusal to back the Bush administration's invasion, purportedly launched to seize weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein (which were never found), was hugely popular in Canada, widely hailed as nothing less than a defining moment of national sovereignty.
The classified U.S. document obtained from WikiLeaks shows senior Canadian officials met that same day with high-ranking American and British diplomats at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa.
The confidential note, written by a U.S. diplomat at the gathering, states that Foreign Affairs official James Wright waited until after the official meeting to impart the most important news of all.
According to the U.S. account, Wright "emphasized" that contrary to public statements by the prime minister, Canadian naval and air forces could be "discreetly" put to use during the pending U.S.-led assault on Iraq and its aftermath.
At that time, Canada had warships, aircraft and over 1,200 naval personnel already in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, intercepting potential militant vessels and providing safe escort to other ships as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the post-Sept. 11, 2001, multinational war on terrorism.
The U.S. briefing note states: "Following the meeting, political director Jim Wright emphasized that, despite public statements that the Canadian assets in the Straits of Hormuz will remain in the region exclusively to support Enduring Freedom, they will also be available to provide escort services in the Straits and will otherwise be discreetly useful to the military effort.
"The two ships in the Straits now are being augmented by two more en route, and there are patrol and supply aircraft in the U.A.E. [United Arab Emirates] which are also prepared to 'be useful.'
"This message tracks with others we have heard," the U.S. diplomat wrote in his briefing note to State Department bosses in Washington.
"While for domestic political reasons… the GOC [Government of Canada] has decided not to join in a U.S. coalition of the willing,… they are also prepared to be as helpful as possible in the military margins."
'Please destroy cable'
The original U.S. briefing cable, dated the day of the meeting, was marked "unclassified." Two days later, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa issued an urgent internal notice to "please destroy previous cable," replacing it with the same message but marked "confidential."
The Canadian official involved, James Wright, is now Canada's high commissioner in London. He declined to comment for this report.
The U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time, Paul Cellucci, says he couldn't be at the meeting in Ottawa that day — he was stranded in a snowstorm in the U.S. — but the version of events in the leaked memo "sounds right."
"The message from the Canadians was pretty clear," Cellucci told CBC News. "We are not putting boots on the ground in Iraq. We will say good things about the United States and not-so-good things about Saddam Hussein."
And finally: "We will keep our ships in the Persian Gulf helping in the war on terror — and any way else we can help."
Exactly what that meant for the Canadian naval ships and surveillance aircraft in the Gulf region at the time — and how much they ultimately became involved in the Iraq war — remains a matter of considerable debate.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the duties of the Canadian ships had been mainly to protect other vessels from attacks by militants and to intercept craft suspected of gun-running and other potentially militant-related activities.
The issue is what, if anything, changed after the Chrétien government decreed those ships and aircraft couldn't be involved in intercepting vessels connected to the Iraq war.
"How do you know if something is connected to terrorism or Iraq? When you are intercepting unknown boats, you don't know what you have taken over until you have taken it over."
Lang says that after "painful" consultations with federal lawyers, the Department of National Defence issued Canadian naval commanders in the Gulf clear orders not to engage in anything to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"But who knows whether in fact we were doing things indirectly for Iraqi Freedom? It is quite possible."
McCallum's former chief recalled a bitter internal battle over whether to pull the Canadian ships out of the Gulf altogether to avoid any confusion.
"For a long time, the [Canadian] military pushed really hard not to be in Afghanistan, and instead be part of a full-blown boots-on-the-ground Iraq invasion," Lang said.
"So the military was dead set against pulling out [of the Gulf], and in the end the government decided we would stay mainly, I think, for Canada-U.S. relations."
Former defence minister McCallum recalls he and his officials having "extremely long and detailed meetings to make sure that we were not in fact committing to help the war in Iraq."
"Now, what happens on the high seas is not something I can prove or disprove, but those were the orders that the military had."
U.S. didn't seem to care
Ironically, after all the fuss, the Americans didn't seem to care whether Canada contributed a lot of military might to the Iraq mission.
A former senior Canadian bureaucrat said: "The Americans knew we were stretched to the limit on the military side, and they really just wanted a political endorsement of their plan to go into Iraq."
Former U.S. ambassador Cellucci concurred: "We were looking for moral support. That's all we were looking for.… We were looking for 'we support the Americans.' "
A U.S. diplomatic briefing note prepared for Rumsfeld prior to the meeting states: "As for what Canada might bring to the table, our expectations should be modest."
The memo, also obtained by CBC News from WikiLeaks, goes on to say: "Canada probably would need to use assets currently devoted to Operation Enduring Freedom, including a naval task group [in the Gulf] and patrol and transport aircraft."
If the secret U.S. memos cast doubts on Canada's status as a refusenik of the Iraq war, the public also didn't exactly get the whole truth about a group of Canadian soldiers the government admitted were in Iraq.
From the outset, the Chrétien government said a "few" Canadian soldiers embedded with the U.S. and British militaries as exchange officers would be allowed to remain in their positions, even if they wound up in Iraq.
While the revelation caused a ruckus in Parliament, it all sounded relatively innocuous at the time.
But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command, including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff, who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait.
The Department of National Defence refused to comment on Natynczyk's role, if any, in the invasion of Iraq.
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Friday, 18 September 2015
David Raymond Amos Versus The Crown T-1557-15
Court File No. T-1557-15
FEDERAL
COURT
BETWEEN:
DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
Plaintiff
and
HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Parties
1. HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crown)
is Elizabeth II, the Queen of England, the Protector of the Faith of the Church
of England, the longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom and one of the
wealthiest persons in the world. Canada pays homage to the Queen because she
remained the Head of State and the Chief Executive Officer of Canada after the Canada
Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 came
into force on April 17, 1982. The standing of the Queen in Canada was explained
within the 2002 Annual Report FORM 18-K filed by Canada with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It states as follows:
“The
executive power of the federal Government is vested in the Queen, represented
by the Governor General, whose powers are exercised on the advice of the
federal Cabinet, which is responsible to the House of Commons. The legislative
branch at the federal level, Parliament, consists of the Crown, the Senate and
the House of Commons.”
“The
executive power in each province is vested in the Lieutenant Governor,
appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the federal Cabinet.
The Lieutenant Governor’s powers are exercised on the advice of the
provincial cabinet, which is responsible to the legislative assembly. Each
provincial legislature is composed of a Lieutenant Governor and a legislative assembly
made up of members elected for a period of five years.”
2. Her
Majesty the Queen is the named defendant pursuant to sections 23(1) and 36 of the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Some of the state actors whose duties and actions are at issue in this
action are the Prime Minister, Premiers, Governor General, Lieutenant
Governors, members of the Canadian Forces (CF), and Royal Canadian Mounted
Police (RCMP), federal and provincial Ministers of Public Safety, Ministers of
Justice, Ministers of Finance, Speakers, Clerks, Sergeants-at-Arms and any
other person acting as Aide-de-Camp providing security within and around the
House of Commons, the legislative assemblies or acting as security for other federal,
provincial and municipal properties.
3. Her
Majesty the Queen’s servants the RCMP
whose mandate is to serve and protect Canadian citizens and assist in the
security of parliamentary properties and the protection of public officials
should not deny a correspondence from a former Deputy Prime Minister who was
appointed to be Canada’s first Minister of Public Safety in order to oversee
the RCMP and their cohorts. The letter that
helped to raise the ire of a fellow Canadian citizen who had never voted in his
life to run for public office four times thus far is quoted as follows:
“Mr. David R. Amos Jan 3rd, 2004
153Alvin Avenue
Milton, MA U.S.A. 02186
Dear Mr. Amos
Thank you for your letter of November 19th,
2003, addressed to
my predecessor, the Honourble
Wayne Easter, regarding your safety.
I apologize for the delay in
responding.
If you have any concerns about your
personal safety, I can only
suggest that you contact the
police of local jurisdiction. In addition, any
evidence of criminal activity
should be brought to their attention since the
police are in the best position
to evaluate the information and take action
as deemed appropriate.
I trust that this information is
satisfactory.
Yours sincerely
A. Anne McLellan”
82. The
Plaintiff states that any politician or police officer should have seen enough
of Barry Winter’s WordPress blog by June 22, 2015 particularly after the very
unnecessary demise of two men in Alberta because of the incompetence of the
EPS. Barry Winters was blogging about the EPS using battering ram in order to execute a warrant for a 250
dollar bylaw offence at the same time Professor Kris Wells revealed in a
televised interview that the EPS member who was killed was the one
investigating the cyber harassment of him. It was obvious why the police and
politicians ignored all the death threats, sexual harassment, cyberbullying and
hate speech of a proud Zionist who claimed to be a former CF officer who now
working for the Department of National Defence (DND). It is well known that no
politician in Canada is allowed to sit in Parliament as a member of the major
parties unless they support Israel. Since 2002 the Plaintiff made it well known
that he does not support Israeli actions and was against the American plan to
make war on Iraq. On Aril 1, 2003 within two weeks of the beginning of the War
on Iraq, the US Secret Service threatened to practice extraordinary rendition
because false allegations of a Presidential threat were made against him by an
American court. However, the Americans and the Crown cannot deny that what he
said in two courts on April 1, 2003 because he published the recordings of what
was truly said as soon as he got the court tapes. The RCMP knows those words
can still be heard on the Internet today. In 2009, the Plaintiff began to
complain of Barry Winters about something far more important to Canada as
nation because of Winters’ bragging of being one of 24 CF officers who assisted
the Americans in the planning the War on Iraq in 2002. In the Plaintiff’s
humble opinion the mandate of the DND is Defence not Attack. He is not so naive
to think that such plans of war do not occur but if Barry Winters was in fact
one of the CF officers who did so then he broke his oath to the Crown the
instant he bragged of it in his blog. If Winters was never an officer in the CF
then he broke the law by impersonating an officer. The Plaintiff downloaded the
emails of the Privy Council about Wikileaks. The bragging of Barry Winters
should have been investigated in 2009 before CBC reported that documents released
by WikiLeaks supported his information about Canadian involvement in the War on
Iraq.
83. The Plaintiff states that
now that Canada is involved in more war in Iraq again it did not serve
Canadian interests and reputation to allow Barry Winters to publish the
following words three times over five years after he began his bragging:
Friday, October 3,
2014
Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
Stupid Justin Trudeau
Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
Stupid Justin Trudeau
Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
When I was still
in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien actually committed
the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign in Iraq, the
Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to the
wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were involved in
the
initial planning phases of that operation. There were significant
concern in
our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth of concern for
operational guidance,
direction, and forces for operations after the initial occupation of
Iraq. At
the “last minute” Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government
changed
its mind. The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would
not
deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a Canadian
Battle
Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to redeploy troops
from
there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was less costly to deploy
Canadian
Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But alas no one seems to remind the
Liberals
of Prime Minister Chretien’s then grossly incorrect assumption.
Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s incompetence
and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic, professional, punched well
above
it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle Group, is credited with “saving
Afghanistan”
during the Panjway campaign of 2006.
What Justin
Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then Liberal Prime
Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the Canadian army to Canada’s
longest “war” without the advice, consent, support, or vote of the Canadian
Parliament.
What David Amos
and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling chattering classes are
too addled to understand is the deployment of less than 75 special operations
troops, and what is known by planners as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft
is NOT the same as a deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
The Canadian Government
or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have the “constitutional authority” to
commit the Canadian nation to war. That has been recently clearly articulated
to the Canadian public by constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What
Parliament can do is remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote
of non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government regarding
deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this instance with the
conservative majority in The Commons regarding a limited Canadian deployment to
the Middle East.
President George
Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror attacks in New York; that the
Taliban “occupied” and “failed state” Afghanistan was the source of logistical
support, command and control, and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against
the world. The initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was
vital and essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear and
present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,” or“failed state”
will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of terror against not only the
“western world,” but Arab states “moderate” or not, as well. The security,
safety, and tranquility of Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the
emergence of an ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with
the Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
One of the
everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty was Canada and
successive Liberal governments cowering behind the amerkan’s nuclear and conventional
military shield, at the same time denigrating, insulting them, opposing them,
and at the same time self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and
progenitors of “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO,
the G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious behavior
from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully cognizant of that reality.
Even if some editorial boards, and pundits are not.
Justin, Trudeau
“the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal mantra, and tradition of
expecting the amerkans or the rest of the world to do “the heavy lifting.”
Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy” David Amos are telling Canadians that we
can guarantee our security and safety by expecting other nations to fight for
us. That Canada can and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by
providing “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war criminal.”
This morning Australia announced they too, were sending tactical aircraft to
eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
In one sense Prime
Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau “the elder” and Jean ‘the
crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and successive Liberal governments
delighted in diminishing, marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and
sending Canadian military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern equipment;
so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are antiquated, poorly
equipped, and ought to have been replaced five years ago. But alas, there won’t
be single RCAF fighter jock that won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada
safe or safer.
My Grandfather
served this country. My father served this country. My Uncle served this
country. And I have served this country. Justin Trudeau has not served Canada
in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not served this country in any way. Liberals and
so called social democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos,
and other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet these
fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to other nations, and
then criticize them for doing so.
Canada must again,
now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security, and tranquility, but also that
of the world. Canada has never before shirked its responsibility to its citizens
and that of the world.
Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>>>>
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil, Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1 <stoffp1@parl.gc.ca>,
dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca, milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca, sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir <birgir@althingi.is>, smari <smari@immi.is>, greg.weston@cbc.ca, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice" <Edith.Cody-Rice@cbc.ca>, "terry.seguin"
<terry.seguin@cbc.ca>, acampbell <acampbell@ctv.ca>, whistleblower <whistleblower@ctv.ca>
I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters
David Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on CAPAC during her last days in office as if
she were oh so ethical.. To be fair to him I just called Greg Weston
(613-288-6938) I suggested that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos
It would be wise if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something
else about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that
your old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is interesting
though
http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a shy political animal
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
Enjoy Mr Weston
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
"But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
"I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends" demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying into the US policy.
At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there were deployed WMD.
Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the George W Bush administration was onerous
American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which ....not necessarily in that order. "
You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
"I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends" demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying into the US policy.
At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there were deployed WMD.
Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the George W Bush administration was onerous
American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which ....not necessarily in that order. "
You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Methinks John McCallum's words about the War on Iraq backfired long ago and I proved it in my lawsuit in 2015 Thats why Trudeau shipped him off to China after the last election N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/01/canadas-ambassador-to-china-says-meng.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mccallum-meng-huawei-china-1.4989235
Canada's ambassador to China says Meng has strong defence to fight extradition
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Commenting is now closed for this story.
Jay Bertsch
I really don't think an Ambassador should be publicly weighing in an a judicial matter. These words could backfire.
Ernest Gregson
@Jay Bertsch
Exactly. Trump weighs in-bad. Ex liberal cabinet minister now ambassador weighs in-good.
Exactly. Trump weighs in-bad. Ex liberal cabinet minister now ambassador weighs in-good.
Mandel Rooney
@Ernest Gregson
Trump stated he would use her as leverage, indicating this was political and not judicial. The ambassador was talking about the merits of her case. Not quite the same thing.
Trump stated he would use her as leverage, indicating this was political and not judicial. The ambassador was talking about the merits of her case. Not quite the same thing.
Ernest Gregson
@Ernest Gregson
Don’t get me wrong. I believed from the get go that her bail conditions should have permitted travel as long as she solemnly promised to return for the extradition hearing.
Don’t get me wrong. I believed from the get go that her bail conditions should have permitted travel as long as she solemnly promised to return for the extradition hearing.
Ernest Gregson
@Mandel Rooney
Agree not the same but both are interfering in the judicial process.
Agree not the same but both are interfering in the judicial process.
Jay Bertsch
@Mandel Rooney no, Trump is
another story as always...on this matter though, imagine if the
extradition is granted. China can say "Canada's own ambassador
supported her case and Canada is just bending to the will of the US".
It makes our judicial process look bias and political. No good can come
of that comment.
Troy Mann
@Jay Bertsch
He said she has a good case which is 100% truth.
He said she has a good case which is 100% truth.
Penny Catt
@Troy Mann
It may be 100% true but it's still out of line for him to say anything.
It may be 100% true but it's still out of line for him to say anything.
Troy Mann
@Penny Catt
Why? He is an ambassador
Why? He is an ambassador
Ulanbek Mamatov
@Troy Mann He is a political figure representing Canada in China and not a judge.
Ralph Ashton
@Jay Bertsch
Not only should the ambassador have weighed in ... he (or his government) should have done so since December.
The three points he raised are quite valid and one hopes the American effort will be thwarted.
Not only should the ambassador have weighed in ... he (or his government) should have done so since December.
The three points he raised are quite valid and one hopes the American effort will be thwarted.
Art Rowe
@Jay Bertsch
AGREE. First he says there has been no federal involvement BUT then just who is he if not a high ranking federal official?
He is not judicial in any way, so HE has caused the federals to now be involved.
AGREE. First he says there has been no federal involvement BUT then just who is he if not a high ranking federal official?
He is not judicial in any way, so HE has caused the federals to now be involved.
Clint Allen
@Jay Bertsch
Exactly , and as much as Trump weighed in,
This is currently before the Canadian courts, not American.
He should stay quiet.
Exactly , and as much as Trump weighed in,
This is currently before the Canadian courts, not American.
He should stay quiet.
Keith Burton
@Troy Mann
JT wanted him out of cabinet so gave him a reward. Off to
China he went.
JT wanted him out of cabinet so gave him a reward. Off to
China he went.
Glen robert
@Jay Bertsch
He is the Ambassador to China nothing more.
Keep Quiet John
He is the Ambassador to China nothing more.
Keep Quiet John
Matt Thuaii
@Jay Bertsch
He’s saying this judicial matter is solely a judicial matter, and that the federal government is not involved...
...which makes perfect sense in light of the misplaced (and likely manufactured) rage toward the federal government on this matter.
He’s saying this judicial matter is solely a judicial matter, and that the federal government is not involved...
...which makes perfect sense in light of the misplaced (and likely manufactured) rage toward the federal government on this matter.
David R. Amos
@Jay Bertsch Methinks John
McCallum's words about the War on Iraq backfired long ago and I proved
it in my lawsuit in 2015 Thats why Trudeau shipped him off to China
after the last election N'esy Pas?
Al Kennedy
@David R. Amos
You have piqued my interest. What was that lawsuit about?
You have piqued my interest. What was that lawsuit about?
David R. Amos
@Troy Mann "Why? He is an ambassador"
Methinks he is an Ambassador because I embarrassed Trudeau with statement 83 of the lawsuitI filed in Federal Court in Fredericton N'esy Pas?
Methinks he is an Ambassador because I embarrassed Trudeau with statement 83 of the lawsuitI filed in Federal Court in Fredericton N'esy Pas?
Content disabled.
David R. Amos
David R. Amos
@Al Kennedy "You have piqued my interest. What was that lawsuit about?"
Thanks for asking Basically I sued as a whistle-blower who was illegally barred from parliamentary properties while running for public office.
Checkout this comment section
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
Thanks for asking Basically I sued as a whistle-blower who was illegally barred from parliamentary properties while running for public office.
Checkout this comment section
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
David R. Amos
@Al Kennedy I just noticed that my reply to you was blocked. Try googling David Amos Federal Court
Steve Prior
What is McCallum doing even
discussing the case let alone giving her a leg up? I had always
thought diplomats were suppose to be neutral
Troy Mann
@Steve Prior
How is stating she has a good case giving her a leg up? It is pretty blatant she has a good case but it is up to her lawyer to bring it. 100% what the government has been stating.
How is stating she has a good case giving her a leg up? It is pretty blatant she has a good case but it is up to her lawyer to bring it. 100% what the government has been stating.
Byron Whitford
@david mccaig
Wrong. The extradition is based on actions Huawai took in 2012 to defraud banks causing them to violate international sanctions on Iran that weren't lifted until 2015.
Essentially Huawai defrauded the banks (HSBC) which caused them to violate the UN sanctions on Iran in 2012 long before international sanctions were lifted or Trump was even President.
Wrong. The extradition is based on actions Huawai took in 2012 to defraud banks causing them to violate international sanctions on Iran that weren't lifted until 2015.
Essentially Huawai defrauded the banks (HSBC) which caused them to violate the UN sanctions on Iran in 2012 long before international sanctions were lifted or Trump was even President.
John Hancock
@Steve Prior mcallum is a
senile old wind bag who has no purpose being in politics anymore. He’s
anti Canadian every time he speaks and has served no purpose other than
soaking up taxpayer money far past his due date.
Troy Mann
@Steve Prior
He stated a clear fact
How is stating facts not being neutral?
Let's face facts here, there is nothing Canada can do that would make you happy, conservatives hate Canada
He stated a clear fact
How is stating facts not being neutral?
Let's face facts here, there is nothing Canada can do that would make you happy, conservatives hate Canada
David Allan
@Steve Prior
" I had always thought diplomats were suppose to be neutral"
Where did you get that idea?
It's patently false.
Do you really think our ambassadors aren't supposed to have our national interest at heart?
What do you think an ambassador is?
" I had always thought diplomats were suppose to be neutral"
Where did you get that idea?
It's patently false.
Do you really think our ambassadors aren't supposed to have our national interest at heart?
What do you think an ambassador is?
David Allan
@david mccaig
"Thats hilarious if its true"
What do you mean, "if."
It was in all the news.
I can't believe people think they have a valid opinion without even knowing what Meng was arrested for.
"Thats hilarious if its true"
What do you mean, "if."
It was in all the news.
I can't believe people think they have a valid opinion without even knowing what Meng was arrested for.
David R. Amos
@David Allan Methinks many
politicians can recall that this is not the first time your hero has
been in diplomatic hot water N'esy Pas?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weston-canada-offered-to-aid-iraq-invasion-wikileaks-1.1062501
"From the outset, the Chrétien government said a "few" Canadian soldiers embedded with the U.S. and British militaries as exchange officers would be allowed to remain in their positions, even if they wound up in Iraq.
While the revelation caused a ruckus in Parliament, it all sounded relatively innocuous at the time.
But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command, including a Canadian general.
That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff, who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000 U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait.
The Department of National Defence refused to comment on Natynczyk's role, if any, in the invasion of Iraq."
@Troy Mann "conservatives hate Canada"
Methinks you tell that to all your pals N'esy Pas?
Methinks you tell that to all your pals N'esy Pas?
Leslie Green
MacCallum is Canada's
ambassador to China. He should be working on securing the release of
Canadians held in China. Instead of that he seems to be acting as
China's ambassador to Canada
David R. Amos
@Leslie Green YUP
Carol Becker
I hope she does get off. The more I read the more I feel the Canadian government was used by the US as scapegoats.
David R. Amos
@Carol Becker Me Too
betty einweiss
hey people..America is our
largest trading partner NOT china...some of you may not like Trump but
that doesn't change the fact that we need the US more than china
@betty einweiss True However methinks that Mr Trump and his minions do not understand the rule of law N'esy Pas?
Daryl McBride
This government is terrible at diplomacy.
David R. Amos
@Daryl McBride True
betty einweiss
regarding his appearance at a news conference with"Canadian Chinese-language media in Markham"
two sets of messages here? 1) we will uphold the law (for everyone else) or
2) she has a strong defense - so don't worry ( for people of chinese descent who happen to live in Canada)
get some balls McCallum, or are you afraid the chinese will grab you next?
two sets of messages here? 1) we will uphold the law (for everyone else) or
2) she has a strong defense - so don't worry ( for people of chinese descent who happen to live in Canada)
get some balls McCallum, or are you afraid the chinese will grab you next?
David R. Amos
@betty einweiss Methinks Mr
McCallum and his many cohorts wish to forget that the Department of
Foreign Affairs did nothing for me when the Yankees threatened to take
in to Gitmo in April of 2003 after I won some judgements in Yankee
courts and then laughed at me in October of 2004 in a Yankee jail where I
was being held in solitary confinement under the charges of "Other"
after I ran for a seat in the 38th Parliament N'esy Pas?
Ross Beatty
Attaboy McCallum, undercut your own citizens who are being brutalized by China.
Now, if Meng is in fact extradited to the US, the Chinese will use McCallum's comments to justify continued vicious treatment of the Canadian hostages by their Chinese kidnappers.
What is it with Liberal politicians that they just cannot grasp the concept of whose interests they are supposed to be working for?
McCallum's ONLY concern should be in obtaining the release of the Canadian hostages.
Now, if Meng is in fact extradited to the US, the Chinese will use McCallum's comments to justify continued vicious treatment of the Canadian hostages by their Chinese kidnappers.
What is it with Liberal politicians that they just cannot grasp the concept of whose interests they are supposed to be working for?
McCallum's ONLY concern should be in obtaining the release of the Canadian hostages.
David R. Amos
@Ross Beatty I wholeheartedly agree Sir
Marc Desbiens
McCallum is way out of line.
This is a judicial matter, not a political one. The Liberals berated
Trump for over stepping the same line. Liberals are caving to Chinese
pressure. I would rather a government that represents Canadians!
David R. Amos
@Marc Desbiens "I would rather a government that represents Canadians!"
Me Too
Me Too
Canada's ambassador to China says Meng has strong defence to fight extradition
John McCallum says Huawei executive has 'quite good arguments on her side'
Canada's top diplomat in China says the Huawei executive
arrested in Vancouver at the request of the United States has a strong
case to fight extradition.
Meng Wanzhou, the 46-year-old chief financial officer of the telecom giant, has "quite good arguments on her side," John McCallum said at a news conference with Canadian Chinese-language media in Markham, Ont., on Tuesday.
"One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case, and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions. So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge," he said in his opening remarks
McCallum said a judge will ultimately make the decision on whether she should be extradited, and stressed there has been "zero involvement" by the federal government.
"It's purely a judicial process. There may come a time when the justice minister is required to give a view, but that will not be for some months to come," he said.
"I know this has angered China, but we have a system of extradition treaty, a system of rules of law, which are above the government. The government cannot change these things, and as I said, I think Ms. Meng has quite a strong case."
Despite those assurances, the Liberal government to this point has not weighed in on the merits of the case or offered an opinion on the possible legal avenues her counsel could pursue in court.
In fact, before Tuesday, the government had studiously avoided discussing the facts of the case in public.
Meng is accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran through a Huawei subsidiary.
Meng's case has drawn international attention, and sparked diplomatic tensions between Canada and China.
McCallum, who spoke only to Chinese-language journalists Tuesday without providing advanced knowledge to mainstream media outlets, said the Meng case has angered Chinese President Xi Jinping personally.
"I do know that President Xi Jinping was very angry about this and so others in the Chinese government have taken the lead from him, and I don't know exactly why," McCallum said of the Communist party leader.
"Maybe it's because Huawei is a national flagship company of China. It's not just any company; it's a special Chinese company. So, maybe that is why he is so angry."
After McCallum's comments surfaced in the mainstream media early Wednesday, a spokesperson for Freeland said Canada is committed to pursuing a fair and transparent legal proceeding.
"There has been no political involvement in this process. Canada respects its international legal commitments, including by honouring its extradition treaty with the United States," Adam Austen said.
Erin O'Toole, the Conservative foreign affairs critic, said McCallum's comments, which were made after a meeting with the prime minister and his cabinet on the matter, inevitably raises questions about political interference in sensitive legal proceedings.
"Did Trudeau instruct the ambassador to make these statements? Did the Liberals exclude Canadian media from the press conference to limit scrutiny? Why did the ambassador not raise these issues when he met with MPs?" O'Toole tweeted.
"The Conservatives have urged more strategic outreach to Chinese media, but with a focus on the fair process and friendly treatment of Meng Wanzhou without assessing the legal merits of her case," he said.
David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador in China, said McCallum's comments to Chinese-language media were "almost impossible to understand."
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying has said Canada and the U.S. had abused the extradition agreement in Meng's case.
David MacNaughton, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., confirmed to CBC News that U.S. officials have indicated to him they will soon file the formal request needed in the extradition case.
There is a Jan. 30 deadline to complete this work.
Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been detained in China in what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has described as "arbitrary" detentions in retaliation for Meng's arrest. Chinese officials has said only that the two men are accused of "engaging in activities endangering national security."
Another Canadian, Robert Schellenberg, recently had his 15-year sentence for drug smuggling changed to a death sentence by a Chinese court after a retrial.
McCallum said there had been great progress in strengthening Canada-China relations before Meng's case erupted.
He said while it is a "difficult time" in bilateral relations, officials and business leaders should continue to move forward.
Canada has issued a travel advisory for China that warns of arbitrary detention, and China has reciprocated with its own warning about Canada. Citing the "arbitrary detention" of a Chinese national at the request of a "third-party country," China asked citizens to "fully evaluate risks" and exercise caution when travelling to Canada.
McCallum said the government is not saying don't go to China, but rather that each person must make a personal decision after evaluating the situation. If someone has a history of running afoul of Chinese laws, it's probably not a good idea to go, but ordinary tourists or business people should have no reason not to travel there, he said.
Meng Wanzhou, the 46-year-old chief financial officer of the telecom giant, has "quite good arguments on her side," John McCallum said at a news conference with Canadian Chinese-language media in Markham, Ont., on Tuesday.
"One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case, and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions. So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge," he said in his opening remarks
McCallum said a judge will ultimately make the decision on whether she should be extradited, and stressed there has been "zero involvement" by the federal government.
"It's purely a judicial process. There may come a time when the justice minister is required to give a view, but that will not be for some months to come," he said.
"I know this has angered China, but we have a system of extradition treaty, a system of rules of law, which are above the government. The government cannot change these things, and as I said, I think Ms. Meng has quite a strong case."
Despite those assurances, the Liberal government to this point has not weighed in on the merits of the case or offered an opinion on the possible legal avenues her counsel could pursue in court.
In fact, before Tuesday, the government had studiously avoided discussing the facts of the case in public.
Meng is accused of violating U.S. sanctions against Iran through a Huawei subsidiary.
McCallum, who spoke only to Chinese-language journalists Tuesday without providing advanced knowledge to mainstream media outlets, said the Meng case has angered Chinese President Xi Jinping personally.
"I do know that President Xi Jinping was very angry about this and so others in the Chinese government have taken the lead from him, and I don't know exactly why," McCallum said of the Communist party leader.
"Maybe it's because Huawei is a national flagship company of China. It's not just any company; it's a special Chinese company. So, maybe that is why he is so angry."
After McCallum's comments surfaced in the mainstream media early Wednesday, a spokesperson for Freeland said Canada is committed to pursuing a fair and transparent legal proceeding.
"There has been no political involvement in this process. Canada respects its international legal commitments, including by honouring its extradition treaty with the United States," Adam Austen said.
Erin O'Toole, the Conservative foreign affairs critic, said McCallum's comments, which were made after a meeting with the prime minister and his cabinet on the matter, inevitably raises questions about political interference in sensitive legal proceedings.
"Did Trudeau instruct the ambassador to make these statements? Did the Liberals exclude Canadian media from the press conference to limit scrutiny? Why did the ambassador not raise these issues when he met with MPs?" O'Toole tweeted.
For
Ambassador McCallum to comment in detail on the legal merits of an
extradition case after closed door meetings with the Liberal cabinet on
the subject raises questions of political interference. 1/3 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mccallum-meng-huawei-china-1.4989235 …
"The Conservatives have urged more strategic outreach to Chinese media, but with a focus on the fair process and friendly treatment of Meng Wanzhou without assessing the legal merits of her case," he said.
David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador in China, said McCallum's comments to Chinese-language media were "almost impossible to understand."
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying has said Canada and the U.S. had abused the extradition agreement in Meng's case.
David MacNaughton, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., confirmed to CBC News that U.S. officials have indicated to him they will soon file the formal request needed in the extradition case.
There is a Jan. 30 deadline to complete this work.
Canadians detained in China
Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been detained in China in what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has described as "arbitrary" detentions in retaliation for Meng's arrest. Chinese officials has said only that the two men are accused of "engaging in activities endangering national security."
Another Canadian, Robert Schellenberg, recently had his 15-year sentence for drug smuggling changed to a death sentence by a Chinese court after a retrial.
McCallum said there had been great progress in strengthening Canada-China relations before Meng's case erupted.
He said while it is a "difficult time" in bilateral relations, officials and business leaders should continue to move forward.
Canada has issued a travel advisory for China that warns of arbitrary detention, and China has reciprocated with its own warning about Canada. Citing the "arbitrary detention" of a Chinese national at the request of a "third-party country," China asked citizens to "fully evaluate risks" and exercise caution when travelling to Canada.
McCallum said the government is not saying don't go to China, but rather that each person must make a personal decision after evaluating the situation. If someone has a history of running afoul of Chinese laws, it's probably not a good idea to go, but ordinary tourists or business people should have no reason not to travel there, he said.
With files from the CBC's Kathleen Harris, Philip Ling and John Paul Tasker
No comments:
Post a Comment