Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:12:29 -0800WeeblyFri, 09 Apr 2010 07:53:30 -0800http://www.newsbastards.com/3/post/2010/04/first-post.htmlAuthor: G.

Jaffer and Guergis are being roasted alive in the media.  Some useful advice can be drawn from a similar, if not more extreme, case involving Ethel and Julius Rosenberg back in the late 1940s.  Julius was guilty of treason for leaking atomic bomb secrets.  He chose not to roll on fellow communists and was executed.  Others who did choose to rat our their colleagues were released after 15 years behind bars.  The court of public opinion in the case showed little mercy and was the main contributor to his death.  People were out for blood as was the case for most perceived traitors in the post WW2 era.  His wife, unfortunately, shared a similar fate because she too chose not to spill the beans.  Guilt by association became her grim reaper.

Jaffer and Guergis need to speak up quickly to stem a similar tide of public anger.  If Tiger Woods' high-priced PR gurus are advising him to come clean, I would recommend the same  for these two.  When you get to the centre of the case, all that currently exists are political accusations.  You can connect the dots based on scant evidence, but this is hardly catching someone red handed.  Richard Colvin's recent testimony is another prime example of this type of evidence.  Personal memos that were not forwarded and third hand information from jailed terrorists led to confident statements that Canada knew our transferred prisoners were being tortured.  The public, however, did not come down hard on the Canadian Forces based on his testimony; so why is everyone, including the PMO out for blood in regards to Guergis?  Because they're leaving themselves open to speculation.

From my small world I can empathize with Jaffer and Guergis in regards to fighting a battle between the court of public opinion and the actual courts.  I've fought numerous tickets, and the bureaucracy is asinine (someone once quoted that government bureaucracy is the only constant in the universe).  Hence, the bureaucracy involved in getting to the truth in their own circumstances must consume the better part of their lives (if only she didn't throw that shoe many months ago!)  All I'm saying is that anyone could find themselves in a similar "public out for blood" circumstance and without the financial and referent power the two people in question both command.  I am therefore suggesting that readers spurn the current media attention to this issue and wait for the RCMP to do their jobs.  As an independent organization they have no love for their elected masters and you can be sure that if law breaking has occured, the RCMP will make it known.
]]>