Canada -
News Sections
Tight-lipped response to rescue is policy: MacKay
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Sun. Mar. 26 2006 11:39 PM ET
After the rescue of Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden both the U.S. and British governments openly spoke about their involvement in the rescues.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government, however, seemed reluctant to talk about the Canadian contribution.
Speaking on CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay says the government's tight-lipped response is traditional procedure.
"This is a long-standing policy that we don't discuss the tactical or operational details around these activities," he said.
"What we have said and what we're very proud of, is that Canada was an active participant from day one when Canadian citizens are at risk."
The two Canadian aid workers and a British colleague held hostage in Iraq for nearly four months were rescued Thursday during a multinational military operation involving Canadian, British, and U.S. special forces. Canada's elite JTF-2 special forces reportedly played an instrumental role in the rescue operation.
MacKay said he was aware that the hostages were alive in the weeks leading up to the rescue, but was hesitant to discuss the details publicly.
"We don't want to do anything that would ever jeopardize or put at risk either hostages or those who are involved in the effort to have them released...
"We want to respect the stress and strain that (the families) are under at that time and so you're not really at liberty to have public discussions."
The activists have been criticized by some for knowingly going into a dangerous area and for putting the troops who had to rescue them at risk, as well as for wasting considerable government resources.
MacKay said he understood their motivation, but urged other Canadians to stay out of Iraq.
"There are times and there are certainly places in the world where (activists) are putting themselves at such risk and such jeopardy that there is, perhaps, a downside to their presence until things stabilize."
User Tools
Related Stories
Most Popular
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
This short piece illustrates perfectly the problem with the adversarial legal system, where the idea of actual guilt is irrelevant to all participants in the pantomime. I support the vigorous defence of a person's rights, but also grasp why lawyers come across slimy. It's hard to look crystal clear and clean when you provide your services on a foundation of one set of acceptable lies against another.
Email