Jay poached the photo so I don't have to. Aside from his sad lapse into phoney baloney snide conclusion, it really points out a very interesting fact - Canadians like the Stanley Cup more than canoes, more than a Tim Hortons outlet located in a Canadian Tire - more than even the NHL who only hold it in trust, more than hockey or the flag.
Update: Not only does he acknowledge the Cup as a national icon, he also confirms that honesty is a great trait of a great man. Good for General Hillier.

Comments
Gorthos - May 3, 2007 10:46 AM
I dunno.. I'd rather own a rickety canoe than the stanley cup and I think Tim Hortons makes crappy coffee.
I read the headline on Yahoo News yesterday that our soldiers were angry about the attention given to allegations of rights abuses of prisoners and honestly, I hate to say it but of course they would be.
Having served time in the infantry reserves, having a whack of friends who are all just strtingto retire from 20 years of service and coming from a military family, I know the mindset. Sure, they are not mindless drones, but they do think a certain way which is outside of mainstream opinion and discussing the treatment of "the enemy" while in the hands of others seems to them a bit on the traitorous side to many of them.
Back in the 1940's you would never hear of this sort of discussion in the news but it's the 21st century, we have changed and our Canadian brand of nationalism usually doesn't include supporting the mission of our military even though we respect the hard, dangerous and deadly work done by those in the front lines.. The problem is that in the military mindset, you cannot support one without supporting the other.
Alan - May 3, 2007 10:57 AM
They can be angry at the leaders who botched the agreement. Fine by me. Remember, all that anger talk is filtred through those who did the botch.
Gorthos - May 3, 2007 11:04 AM
Absolutely correct..
Jay Currie - May 3, 2007 2:49 PM
Snide I will admit to..."phony baloney"? That's not argument, it's invective.
The problem with the captives is more about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan than it is about the conduct of our troops. There is a civil authority there and the reality is that we are, to a large degree, acting on their behalf. If we capture people and that civil authority wants them what are we supposed to do? I suppose the alternative would be to keep the prisoners under Canadian guard but that would raise a host of problems not the least of which is that we largely lack the authority to do so.
This is a level of analysis which seems to entirely escape the boys and girls in the NDP and the Liberal parties who, I'm afraid, see political mileage in finding things wrong with how Canada's forces conduct themselves. Which is a pretty sorry sight and more than a little disgraceful.
Gordo - May 3, 2007 3:06 PM
Jay, if the local civil authority is known to torture and/or mistreat "detainees" (As the Afghans are), then our obligations under the Geneva Conventions are clear: don't hand them over.
Alan - May 3, 2007 3:56 PM
There is no tragedy greater than thinking one faces a true baloney sandwich and to find out that your faith in the filling has been misplaced, Jay. I can think of no other sentiment that expresses my dismay.
On the substantive issue, all we needed to do was to do as the Dutch - include the right to check back. That in itself creates a disincentive to torture. Sort of a commodification of decency through contract. All very marketplace.
Gordo - May 3, 2007 4:53 PM
I was very disappointed to hear the phrase "our previous Liberal government" used again last week wrt this issue. Fine, the Liberals crafted the damned agreement, step up to the plate and fix the thing!
How many people think they could start a new job and manage to continue to blame their predecessor for problems 18 months later? Raise your hands!
Jay Currie - May 3, 2007 6:14 PM
Gordo, I'm with on this to the point when, as with the global warming file, the previous Liberal government did dick and now blame the Tories for a lack of progress.
18 months is fair on the prisoner issue, not at all acceptable on a file with a history like GW.
Meanwhile, Alan, I love the idea of a "check back" and the commodification of decency by contract (though I wonder if decency is fungible, is "half decent" good enough??).
"I, Ishrad Abdul Pathan, (hereinafter "the Warlord")...." fun to draft, a tad sticky to enforce.
Alan - May 3, 2007 6:33 PM
I was not aware that the Canadian Forces were handing prisoners to the Taliban. What else can you be saying?
br - May 4, 2007 11:02 AM
I've been in this job for three years and I continually blame the last guy!
Gorthos - May 4, 2007 12:46 PM
BR makes a good point. Always blame the guy who warmed the desk before you did. Its an easy target and its not like they can mess with your paycheque, give you a reference when you look for a better job, let the air out of your tires or anything like that...