Mulcair explains

Here's another transcript of an interview with NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair spoke to Mike Finnerty on CBC Montreal's Daybreak, the Radio One morning show, earlier today. Mulcair addressed his comments from Wednesday's Power & Politics where he said he doubted U.S. authorities had photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse.

You can listen here.

FINNERTY: Thomas Mulcair has phoned in to talk to us. He is the deputy leader of the NDP and he's the MP for Outremont. Mr. Mulcair good morning thanks for speaking to us.

MULCAIR: No problem Mike thanks for the invitation.

FINNERTY: I want to get you to clear things up. I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so i just want to play this short section from Evan Solomon's interview with you yesterday and then I'll just come to you and you can explain it to us, so here it is from yesterday's CBC News Network.

CLIP: MULCAIR: I don't think from what I've heard those pictures exist and if they do I'll leave that up to the American military. I do know...
SOLOMON: You don't think those pictures exist?
MULCAIR: No I don't think...if they've got pictures of a cadaver then there's probably more going on than we suspect in what happened there. On the other hand if they do have them and they don't release them I think that they're probably doing it in the most decent way. I think if there is something that went on there it requires a full analysis, and we have to understand whether or not there was an action where there was an action in self-defence or whether it was something that was more in the style of a direct killing. END CLIP

FINNERTY: The pictures at issue are pictures of Osama Bin Laden's corpse. Thomas Mulcair do you believe that those pictures exist or not?

MULCAIR: Actually if you'd continued with that quote you'd have heard Evan Solomon giving the context for our conversation. He says this: because there's now news that the question was was Bin Laden reaching for his weapon or was he just shot. That was the context of our conversation and it's worth looking at the full conversation because otherwise you can't understand the context. I take full responsibility for the meandering nature of that back and forth. I'll put that on the account of a certain fatigue, and our joy at our victory the other night, but I will say this: that with regard to the quote that you did give I clearly reference the pictures themselves and say that if the Americans have them and they're holding them back it's for reasons of human decency. So that couldn't be clearer...

FINNERTY: Could we..

MULCAIR: And then I go on to discuss the issue that the Americans have now put up in one of the various versions which is it was a question of self-defence because he was reaching for a weapon, and I question whether or not a picture like that exists...

FINNERTY: Ok well I mean let's talk about that issue about whether the Americans should have shot Osama Bin Laden, whether he had a weapon or not in just a moment, but I just want to be clear, because I'm not sure whether you're saying that you believe the photos exist, because the president, President Obama, says they do. Do you believe that they exist or do you not think they exist?

MULCAIR: We have no reason to doubt when the president says that they exist. What we're saying is if there is a condition that they're putting on the whole exercise, which is that he was reaching for his gun, this is an issue of self-defence for the American soldiers, he wasn't just shot point blank -- I can understand them not releasing the photos that would show a gory result for all the good reasons that they've given and that's specifically what I said in my interview yesterday...

FINNERTY: Ok so did you...

MULCAIR: But turning to...

FINNERTY: Did you misspeak or did we misunderstand when it sounded like you said that you didn't think those picutres existed?

MULCAIR: Well, if you look at the whole context of the conversation it becomes clearer, but I'll take full responsibility for the meandering nature of the beginning of that conversation where I respond the one question which was on the existence or not of any photos and that was clearly not clearest, the best statement I could have made but when you read the whole thing -- if you want to understand words you have to read them in their context and in the whole context it becomes a lot clearer.

FINNERTY: With it...Is it legal within international law to have shot and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, a sovereign country?

MULCAIR: Well that's the questoin that I raised in the interview, you know, and that's exactly it. it raises important questions of international law, it raises important questions of American law, and that's why the varying versions that discuss everything from whether or not he was reaching for a weapon, whether or not somebody else threw themselves at the American soldiers and so on. There've been varying versions. But those are essential questions...

FINNERTY: Well we know...

MULCAIR: Beyond the legal questions Mike, there are simple questions of whether or not we want to live in a world where things are based on vengeance or whether they're based on justice. Justice means that we're going to be applying rules of law, whether they be international or domestic and those are the types of questions I raised in the interview yesterday....

FINNERTY: Well we know...

MULCAIR: ...although not as adroitly as I might have, I have to admit.

FINNERTY: Ok understood. Well we know on this topic we know because the Americans say this is the case they flew in without telling the Pakistanis into Pakistan, sovereign territory, they landed in Pakistan, they raided a building that was on Pakistani territory and they shot Osama Bin Laden...uhhh...they did not try him, it does not appear, in fact they are saying now that he did not have a weapon in his hands. There may have been one, they say there was one in the room, so is that legal? Is what the navy seals did, is that legal?

MULCAIR: That's precisely why I said we should be able to get the most complete answer...

FINNERTY: Well do you think it's legal?

MULCAIR: Well because we've had several different versions so even in the version you've just given me now: holding a weapon, reaching for a weapon, having somebody else in the room who might've had a weapon -- these are all the different versions that have been put up so far. So right now what the answer from the Americans is: these are gory pictures that could stir up passions with regards to the cadaver, we don't want those rendered public -- we're not questioning that. I'm not questioning that and to the extent that there was any ambiguity in my first statement yesterday I wanted to clarify it...

FINNERTY: Yeah do you...

MULCAIR:...but with regard to the deeper issue of whether we want to live in a world that's based on vengeance or on justice, justice implies the application of rules of law duly enacted and that's the question I raise when I talk about international law and American law.

FINNERTY: Thomas Mulcair do you wish that you hadn't addressed this question or do you think it's really important that we have this conversation?

MULCAIR: I think that it's important that elected officials who are in a studio, and in my case yesterday I was doing a telex with Evan Solomon out of Toronto. he asked me a straight-up question, the answer is, you can see, from what we just read, unfortunately opened up different interpretations and one of them is what was put on the air yesterday and I assume full responsibility for that. I've been at this game for too long to start pleading, uh, that I was misquoted. I did read to you verbatim what I had in fact said, so I referenced the photos and the decency behind the idea of not showing the photo. What I also talked about is international law, American law, and whether or not there was any photographic or other evidence that he was indeed reaching for a gun. We've seen in the past when this sort of operation happens that the Americans have a tendency to film them. So if it was a question of reaching for a gun and he hadn't been shot yet, there's no question of hiding it because we want to avoid, uh, shocking people with the image, he hadn't been shot yet...

FINNERTY: I just...I have to ask you one last question before I let you go, and if I could just ask you briefly: do you accept that there are problems with the nomination papers of your candidate in Berthier-Maskinongé?

MULCAIR: I had a long conversation with the party officials yesterday, and with some experts on this. I've listened to the gentleman, and, y'know, I don't want to question somebody who's never been in front of the media before who said two days ago he'd never talked about this, then yesterday was saying well it does look like my signature but I just don't remember it. Y'know, we went door-to-door Mike. when you get signatures for nomination papers you can go to a shopping centre for example, but then you're leaving yourself exposed to having the wrong address, somebody not in the riding. What we do in this case, we went door-to-door. I've checked that out. The neighbours from before and from after remember it, and this gentleman says he doesn't. The information that I have based on everything I've been able to get from the party is: we went door-to-door, we got signatures from people in the riding, and as far as I'm told also by the experts that I've consulted that once those nomination papers are checked, the person who's the director of elections is allowed to make phone calls to people whose names appear on those lists, they're allowed to double check, y'know they can do all sorts of verifications but once they've verified it and they've said the persons's a candidate and their name's on the ballot paper, that's the end of it, and she was elected by a very large majority.

FINNERTY: Thomas Mulcair you're really good to come on the air and to clear up things to address these questions and we appreciate it very much.

MULCAIR: Nice talking to you Mike all the best.