I am absolutely disgusted with our Gov't - the Colvin Case

[Siddley Hawker]

I wonder how they morphed from suspected Taliban fighters to taxi drivers and farmers. If this goes on much longer, they may become candidates for beatification.

[lilfssister]

How many of the people posting on this thread have been in Afghanistan in the past year or two? I know stl has been there, but the rest of you?

[sky's the limit]

T

I'm confused. Insensitive and confused.

Hope your eyeballs are not bleeding now from reading this, STL.

Indeed, you are very confused, insensitive or not. And no, my eyeballs are not bleeding, but my neck is starting to hurt from all the head shaking.

Unfortunately in your confusion, much like a number of the other people posting here and writing myopic OpEd pieces in the daily newspapers, you are combining issues - either purposely like the Gov't and much of the media, or not - which does nothing but obscure the question at hand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in so far as you're not intentional in your confusion, hence my continued participation in this thread.

For the hundredth time, this is not about the allegations so much as the Governments response to the allegations and the lack of due process - this is something EVERY Canadian needs to be concerned about, and it goes right back through the last Liberal Gov't as well.


stl

[BoostedNihilist]

They expect to be unaccountable for their actions and they are.. so why should we be surprised. The lack of due process is a cancer which has effected every facet of government be it local to federal. Even when the process is followed it appears dubious and skewed. I believe it is this basic disregard for societies part in the political process which brings us here to complain. If you are on the right or the left I believe there is a point we can all agree on, we want more accountability.

We all come here banging our heads against the wall about this outrage, or this violation, or how about a manipulation or five but it all comes down to the fact that nobody is listening and therefore nobody is being held accountable. Why would people give a shit.. giving a shit isn't enough. Talking about giving a shit isn't enough. We should all have learned from our 'retired elders' that even doing a shit isn't even enough to get any one of these fuckers to play straight. Rant off but I'm still fuming about the general disregard of the populace.. grrrr

There seems to be things afoot these days. What is going on.. who really knows? but I do not feel particularly consulted about the direction I feel society should take... do any of you feel that anybody gives a shit about what you say? So many assholes and just two ears, the middle stuffed with shit. Even if you know, you are confused, or crazy.

In the end we all share our outrage, and on paper, we are probably right about half the time.

[Widow]

Ottawa leaves Colvin high and dry
Colleagues stay silent as whistle-blower is publicly humiliated by elected officials
James Ron
Associate Professor at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Published On Fri Dec 4 2009

As the Afghan detainee debate continues, I look around Ottawa with increasing concern. Who among my acquaintances was involved? Who raised tough questions in 2006, and who remained silent? It's hard to know, because so few bureaucrats in this town are talking publicly.

I've seen this movie before. Sixteen years ago, I left Israel because it was too hard to live among friends who were politically supportive of peace but personally unwilling to blow whistles.

I left, seeking a country that sent its troops into battle with respect for international law and the determination to expose its own wrongdoings when required.

Until two weeks ago, I thought I'd found that Shangri-La right here.

I'd been searching for a Canada-style haven ever since the 1980s, when a UN peacekeeper watched my military colleagues and I do something unjust.

On the day in question, my platoon had swept into a Lebanese village, seeking information about Israeli soldiers captured nearby. A colleague and I were told to accompany an intelligence officer and two Lebanese informants on a routine arrest, the kind of operation Canadian forces must do every day in Kandahar.

We pushed into someone's home, pulled a man out, and walked round the back of his building. The intelligence team blindfolded his eyes, pushed him to his knees, and placed a gun to his head, demanding answers to questions posed in Arabic.

Perhaps they were bluffing, but it seemed to me that they were about to shoot him dead. I had received no training in the Geneva Conventions, but it didn't take much legal sophistication to realize something was badly amiss. Prisoners, I knew, shouldn't be shot in the head, and even mock executions were a serious form of abuse.

Despite this knowledge, however, I did absolutely nothing. I was 19 years old, and the notion of speaking out publicly was very much beyond the pale.

Suddenly, a blue-helmeted UN officer appeared, and under his unwavering gaze, the incident quickly petered out. The intelligence team disappeared into the morning fog, and my colleague and I walked back to our unit. We never spoke of the incident again.

Ever since that day, I've wanted to live in the kind of country that sends UN peacekeepers abroad to make the world a better place, rather than one that sends its soldiers to fight in dirty wars.

Until last week, I was sure Canada was what I was searching for. As best I could tell, it was a peacekeeping country par excellence, the kind of nation where people did good things abroad and blew whistles on their own misdeeds without fear.

Many immigrants from other war-torn countries probably feel similarly, as well as many of this country's native-born citizens.

Even when Canadian officials embraced war in Kandahar, I believed things would not go too badly awry. Counter-insurgencies were always ugly, but I believed Canadian soldiers and bureaucrats would be different. They would respect the spirit of international law, and would never subject prisoners to real or mock executions. Nor, I believed, would they ever let others do their dirty work for them, the way Israel so often did with its Lebanese militias.

Yet if Richard Colvin's allegations are true, Canada did precisely that in 2006. Hundreds of Afghan men were transferred by Canadian forces to local allies, and at least some of these were brutally tortured. Many, moreover, may have been entirely innocent of any crime, mistakenly swept up in the confusion.

Here in Ottawa, at least 75 people received copies of those reports, and others must have heard word of their content. Many must be dedicated civil servants, keen to serve with honour. Yet very few have publicly admitted reading Colvin's early memos, and even fewer have said they shared his concerns.

And yet, Colvin was promoted to a prestigious position in Washington shortly after his Afghan tour, indicating that his colleagues and superiors must have thought quite highly of his work.

Most troublingly, Colvin's colleagues kept silent two weeks ago even as he was publicly humiliated by elected officials. In the days following his testimony, not one of his colleagues dialled up a journalist and said, "Hi, my name is X, and I read those reports in 2006. Colvin's a respected guy; many of us took him seriously."

The silence of Ottawa's bureaucrats is fuelled by different fears. Some may be loath to speak out because they invested a lifetime in the civil service and fear that whistle-blowers will face boring jobs and reduced pay. Others may fear for their jobs and pensions, and with mortgages or retirement at stake, these worries are real.

Still others may be cowed by the contempt heaped by politicians on Colvin, or be unsure of their rights under Canadian law.

In fact, some of those 75 may have spoken up internally in 2006, adding their voices to Colvin's through internal channels. It may not be their style to speak out, and they thus remain publicly silent, praying that Colvin somehow survives.

Despite all these good reasons, I still find the silence in Ottawa deafening. Soldiers do know right from wrong, and so do policy bureaucrats. When mistakes are made and bad things ensue, everyone involved has a duty to step up, speak out, and take responsibility.

In Israel today, conditions for security whistle-blowers are not nearly as dire as they once were. After the recent war in the Gaza Strip, for example, many soldiers spoke out publicly, telling their countrymen that severe abuses had been done in their name. In today's Israel, the mainstream media are often freer and more self critical than anything available in Canada.

In the U.S., moreover, the use of allied intelligence agencies to conduct brutal interrogations has been discredited and exposed for what it is: abuse by proxy.

Here in Canada, however, the quality of moral debate is still quite immature. Whistle-blowing on issues of national security is still not on, and senior soldiers continue to monopolize the debate, telling those who do not fight that they cannot understand the realities of war. Arguments against torture, moreover, are hampered by tacit disdain for international law, coupled with contempt for the rights of Afghans suspected of being pro-Taliban.

Canada is not the U.S. or Israel. Not yet. But as the debate over Colvin's allegations continues, I fear that the first steps on a slippery slope are in the process of being made.

Canada may never be Shangri-La, and perhaps no such place even exists. Still, the world needs role models to emulate, and until two weeks ago, this country was one of the best ones around.

Just now, however, the silence of the bureaucrats is all I can hear, and that scares me no end.

James Ron has worked as a consultant to Human Rights Watch, was a Canada Research Chair at McGill University, and taught as a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University in the United States.

[sky's the limit]

As the Afghan detainee debate continues, I look around Ottawa with increasing concern. Who among my acquaintances was involved? Who raised tough questions in 2006, and who remained silent? It's hard to know, because so few bureaucrats in this town are talking publicly.

I've seen this movie before. Sixteen years ago, I left Israel because it was too hard to live among friends who were politically supportive of peace but personally unwilling to blow whistles.



Despite all these good reasons, I still find the silence in Ottawa deafening. Soldiers do know right from wrong, and so do policy bureaucrats. When mistakes are made and bad things ensue, everyone involved has a duty to step up, speak out, and take responsibility.


I left, seeking a country that sent its troops into battle with respect for international law and the determination to expose its own wrongdoings when required.

Until two weeks ago, I thought I'd found that Shangri-La right here.


Canada is not the U.S. or Israel. Not yet. But as the debate over Colvin's allegations continues, I fear that the first steps on a slippery slope are in the process of being made.

Canada may never be Shangri-La, and perhaps no such place even exists. Still, the world needs role models to emulate, and until two weeks ago, this country was one of the best ones around.

Just now, however, the silence of the bureaucrats is all I can hear, and that scares me no end.

That pretty much sums it up. You gotta love people, don't you? It's the same mentality that plagues the aviation industry.

stl

[Spokes]

How many of the people posting on this thread have been in Afghanistan in the past year or two? I know stl has been there, but the rest of you?

does this mean that stl is the only authority to speak on the subject? Is stl's word the final one?

I have over 23 years of military service. I do not know anyone that would knowingly turn over soemone for toture, nor, of course, would I do so myself. Having said all that, I am sure that my word is not the final one on the subject.

The 'I have been there- you have not' is a form of the argument from authority. A logical falacy. It is the facts that should guide a debate, not the presenter.

[sky's the limit]

How many of the people posting on this thread have been in Afghanistan in the past year or two? I know stl has been there, but the rest of you?

does this mean that stl is the only authority to speak on the subject? Is stl's word the final one?

Not at all, in fact quite the opposite - which is what I've been arguing for quite some time actually. I appreciate Lil's support, but that is not the message at all.

stl

[JakeYYZ]

Third hand reports of maybe something that someone thought they heard....
What is the order of things? I believe a common’s committee investigates and makes a recommendation as to whether a public inquiry might be in order. At least, that is how I understand procedure. What’s your beef? You think it unfair that his testimony/accusations are rejected by the government?
His career, as a civil servant, is effectively over..done. Can you think of a reason why he might embark on this kamikaze mission? I can.

[sky's the limit]

The proverbial tip of the berg? Either way, START THE INQUIRY ALREADY, that's all anyone is asking. Enough of the charades and start treating the public like people with a vested interest - which we all are.

These are the people representing Canada, between McKay and Harper, I can't figure out which one is more slimy. What ever happened to the best and brightest leading nations?

stl

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA - The country's top military commander reversed himself Wednesday and put rising pressure on the government with the explosive assertion that a beaten and bloodied Canadian-captured prisoner was indeed abused by Afghan authorities prior to 2007.

The stunning about-face by Gen. Walt Natynczyk - who had earlier insisted Canadians had not detained the suspected Taliban in June 2006 - undercuts one of the Conservative government's key lines of defence in the widening controversy over the handling of insurgent prisoners.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has categorically insisted "there is not a single, proven allegation" of abuse prior to 2007.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper brushed aside the revelation by saying it "confirms what we have been saying all along."

But, in a recalibration of the government's position, Harper told the House of Commons that the military acted when they uncovered "substantive evidence" of abuse. Previously, Harper and MacKay have said there was no such evidence.

Natynczyk's revelation also raises questions about whether Canada violated international law by continuing to transfer prisoners to Afghan custody after it had evidence of abuse.

The general skirted questions about any potential political fallout and said he's ordered a board of inquiry investigation into why neither he, nor his predecessor, Rick Hillier, saw a platoon commander's report which detailed the prisoner's capture.

A University of Ottawa law professor says the report represents "incontrovertible proof" that Canada should have stopped transfers right away and that continuing the practice means Ottawa has violated international law.

Knowingly transferring a prisoner into a situation where they may face a risk of torture is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime.

Errol Mendes says the problem was compounded by the fact that Canadians were not monitoring the fate of prisoners between 2006 and 2007. That lapse cannot be laid at the feet of the Canadian military and the government must shoulder the blame, he said.

"If these guys had no clear instructions, and it's clear they didn't, they were almost making it up on the fly which shows you the civilian command was putting them into an untenable position," Mendes said.

MacKay, former defence minister Gordon O'Connor and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon appeared before a special Commons committee later Wednesday and faced pointed accusations by opposition MPs.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said the government didn't need specific allegations of torture to act if there was an already overwhelming number of reports warning of the abuse, including memos from diplomat Richard Colvin.

"International law is very clear; you need circumstantial evidence, you don't need actual knowledge," Dosanjh said.

"Sir, you continued to transfer prisoners to torture in the name of Canada. It's important you understand, you don't need specific allegations."

MacKay bristled at the accusation.

"That is an outrageous, false, inflammatory and insulting allegation....from somebody who's served in government and should know better," he shot back.

"No one ever turned a blind eye. Let me be clear, the government of Canada has never been complicit in torture or any violation of international law by willfully allowing prisoners taken by the Canadian forces to be exposed to abuse."

The news from Natynczyk inflamed the daily question period in the Commons and prompted demands from all three opposition parties for MacKay to be fired.

"Resign, resign!" Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc MPs chanted at MacKay during a raucous session.

The catcalls were ignored by MacKay, who continued to insist he had no prior knowledge of allegations of abuse including the one now being confirmed by the military.

"I rely on information and advice from senior officials, from the military," he told the Commons. "This issue came to my attention this morning after I spoke with Gen. Natynczyk. As I've said before, when we receive information, we act on the information."

NDP leader Jack Layton was incredulous.

"Oh, will they stop already," Layton said. "The prime minister and the defence minister can't spin their way out of this one.

"The chief of defence staff just contradicted everything they've been saying in this House time and time again. The minister claimed there was no proof of abuse. He was wrong and he should take responsibility and resign, and if not, the prime minister should demand it today."

Natynczyk called a news conference Wednesday to correct information he gave a day earlier about a detainee who was beaten by Afghan police. The general told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday that Canadian troops had questioned the man in June 2006, but never detained him.

But Natynczyk now says Canadian troops did indeed capture the man and hand over to Afghan police before taking him back into custody when they saw him being beaten.

The military chief said he was provided with the correct information Wednesday at 9 a.m. after staff reviewed the record. He has ordered an investigation to determine why the information did not get to him or Rick Hillier who served before him.

"I regret that I only have this information at this point," Natynczyk said. "I looked at my watch at 9:06 this morning when I received this report and I thought, 'My goodness, why have I not had this information? Why didn't we have this information back in 2006 and 2007."

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said the military investigation won't get to the bottom of happened and only a public inquiry will shed light on the political accountability.

"The Forces have behaved impeccably in this case ... the issue is why the government didn't," he said.

The government has ruled out a public inquiry.

O'Connor, who was briefed daily on combat operations in 2006-07 told the parliamentary committee he "doesn't recall" being told about any cases of prisoner abuse and dismissed opposition claims of a cover-up.

"In effect what they're saying is that the government and Canadian Forces are in some form of collusion on abuse and torture," O'Connor told the committee. "For this fallacy to occur, up to eight levels of the army would have to be involved through three or four rotations. This involves thousands of people. This would be the cover-ups of all cover-ups and as premise goes beyond common sense."

[sky's the limit]

Taken from a Field Report.

Nobody all that interested in this? Perhaps the implications are a bit far reaching for everyone - including me - to wrap their heads around?

War is war, and believe me being there to see first hand last year was an eye opening experience, but the Government sets policy, and if (which is increasingly looking to be the case) they knew about these abuses, then we have a problem. I won't bother getting into my thoughts on the whole concept of "moral authority," but suffice it to say, if that is what we're going for, actions like covering up issues like this and belittling the one person to stand up and call foul is no way to keep it.

Unfortunately some seem to think this is a fabrication of the media "to sell papers," but I think if you were looking at the media like I do - from a publishing standpoint - you'd see that once again the media has dropped the ball on its duty to inform the public. This story is not new, it just went un-reported for a good long time. The Americans I was with last year spoke openly of being careful about prisoner exchanges, the point is, people knew, lots of people, and for a while.

stl

Field report transcript

20:00 14 Jun 06 [location redacted]

Stopped along Rte [redacted] and held up a vehicle that was proceeding south down the route. Stopped and searched the three individuals in the white van and got a very weird feel from one of them.

Had the terp [interpreter] come and he [unclear] that the individual was in all probability Enemy (Taliban) due to his accent and his false story of being from Kandahar City. So I had him lie down on his stomach, then conducted a detailed search. (I had him empty his pockets prior to this) catalogued all his items and then took down his particulars (name [redacted] from Uruzgan).

We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the ANP did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition.

The ANP Section Comd, [redacted] then arrived, asked the suspect a couple of questions and concurred with our assessment that the individual was enemy.

We in good faith handed the PUC [person under control] over to them so that he could be transported to the Zhari District Center [Forward Operating Base Wilson] where [watchdog] (a radio call-sign for military police) could get him. That was the last I saw him. [redacted] is one of [redacted] men.

[North Shore]

I'll give Peter Mackay until Christmas in his job. Then it'll be time for a 'cabinet shuffle' ...

[sky's the limit]

I'll give Peter Mackay until Christmas in his job. Then it'll be time for a 'cabinet shuffle' ...

Perhaps sooner if he keeps this up.... Page one out of Bush's handbook. It's about time somebody let's these idiots in on the fact they aren't acting in a movie, this is serious, and needs to be dealt with as such - and here I was thinking this was a minority gov't??? The neo-cons have migrated north. Who knew?

stl

Opposition passes rare motion ordering Tories to release Afghanistan documents


By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA - The Conservative government indicated Friday it was prepared to ignore a parliamentary vote calling on it to release uncensored information on enemy prisoners.

"We follow the law and the law is very clear that if there are elements of security, elements that could affect the security of our soldiers or civilians, then information will be protected," said Trade Minister Stockwell Day.

Day, who chairs the federal cabinet committee on Afghanistan, said the government was "following the spirit and letter of the law," and that if opposition MPs don't like it, they can appeal.

Day's remarks set the stage for another opposition vote that could find the government in contempt. That could spark another battle on the limits of parliamentary privilege when the Commons resumes sitting in late January.

The contentious issue of Afghanistan prisoner abuse and the Tory government's propensity to withhold documents on the issue won't be going away any time soon, even though Parliament is on vacation.

The special Commons committee on Afghanistan is planning to resume hearings early next month, well before the House returns.

Before taking their leave on Thursday, opposition parties passed a rare motion ordering the minority government to release the confidential records on enemy prisoners.

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois passed the Commons motion 145-143 demanding the release of thousands of uncensored documents.

If the Conservatives ignore the order, as Day says they will, the opposition could vote to find the government in contempt, setting the stage for further battle.

The issue of Afghanistan prisoner abuse has been at the fore since diplomat Richard Colvin testified at a Commons committee Nov. 18 that all detainees captured by Canadian soldiers were likely tortured after they were transferred to Afghan authorities in 2006 and 2007.

The Conservatives have resisted demands to release uncensored reports on detainees.

The Harper government has repeatedly attacked Colvin's credibility. About 95 former ambassadors have signed a letter of protest over Colvin's treatment.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said divulging confidential records "could be helpful to the enemy" and would jeopardize Canadian troops.

The opposition motion cites the "undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada's constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested."

Justice officials contend in a government-circulated letter that politicians must respect legislated limits to what can be released under privacy and security laws. But Commons law clerk Robert Walsh says MPs in parliamentary committees have the right to read uncensored documents.

[ragbagflyer]

If you all weren't outraged at the governments response to this mess before today, you better be now. They just threw up the biggest middle finger ever seen at everyone of US.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/1 ... ments.html

Lives at risk if Afghan info released: Day
Last Updated: Friday, December 11, 2009 | 6:46 PM ET Comments322Recommend71CBC News
An inmate holds a child in the background as she walks in the yard at a prison in Kabul, Afghanistan. Former diplomat Richard Colvin says captives were turned over to Afghan prison officials by the Canadian military in 2006-07, despite his warnings that the detainees would be tortured. (David Guttenfelder/Associated Press)
Certain information related to the Afghan detainee controversy has to be kept secret to protect lives, International Trade Minister Stockwell Day said Friday in defence of his government's decision not to release critical documents.

Day said government officials routinely make decisions on what information needs to kept classified. It would be "naive" to release info about high-security missions, including details on battlefield captures or the discovery of militants' hideouts, he said.

"There are details of which, if they were to be publicly made available, would only help the enemy. So the law is very clear that there are situations where there could be security issues where certain elements of an operation must be protected."

Trade Minister Stockwell Day says certain information related to the Afghan detainee affair has to be kept secret to protect lives. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Day's comments come a day after the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois passed a motion in the House of Commons demanding the release of thousands of documents in uncensored form, including reports written by Richard Colvin.

Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's mission in Afghanistan who's now based in Washington, says captives were turned over to Afghan prison officials by the Canadian military in 2006-07, despite his warnings to the Canadian government that they would be tortured.

Reporters questioned Day as to how Colvin's diplomatic reports could include military mission-related details.

Day repeated that any elements that could affect the security of Canadian soldiers or civilians would be protected.

The government has repeatedly said it is legally barred, by terms of the Canada Evidence Act, from releasing sensitive information about the Afghan mission. In a letter made public Tuesday, parliamentary law clerk Robert Walsh, Parliament's expert on the laws that affect it, dismissed that reason as "absurd."
Day said if opposition members looking at redacted documents want the censored details, there is a process for them to appeal.

Meanwhile, Peter Tinsley, the departing chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission has taken the Harper government to task for refusing to renew his term in the middle of the Afghan detainee controversy.

It is unprecedented for the government not to renew his appointment as head of the military oversight body, Tinsley said. His last day on the job was Friday.

His departure will effectively halt the commission's ability to continue the public hearings — and send a "chill" through other quasi-judicial bodies whose heads are appointed by the government.

[Rockie]

In true political fashion, the government is trying their best to deny knowledge and blame civil servants or military people just doing their job. But that is all starting to fall apart on them now, so the necessary scapegoat is quickly moving into the politico level. If there were a junior minister willing (for future considerations), or unwilling (tough shit) to take the fall then we would certainly see that happening. But there isn't a junior minister to my knowledge. And since Harper is as invulnerable as a person can get McKay's days are numbered. Tough shit.

[sky's the limit]

And the only way to make sure the theory below doesn't play out is to keep the issue in the fore front where it belongs. The rhetoric surrounding this is embarrassing, but fortunately for the Gov't most Canadians are so detached from the issues that it actually stands a chance of working. Yes, all Mr. Harper has to do is spin this that anyone opposing their utter inaction on this is betraying our troops.... talk about mixing and obscuring issues - Bush 101.

I've just been invited to be involved in a possible multi-year development project in Afghanistan, and even at the high levels this proposal is floating around at, I'm amazed by the lack of comprehension of how "we" are viewed in that country and what our intentions actually are. How can the average Canadian possibly vote on the myriad of issues surrounding our deeply flawed involvement there when even the educated and powerful can't see the forest for the trees most of the time?

stl

Harper government strategy on torture: Talk out the clock

By James Laxer
December 11, 2009


Richard Colvin: "According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured...We kept hopeless records, and apparently to prevent any scrutiny, the Canadian Forces leadership concealed all this behind walls of secrecy....Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners...Canada's detainee practices in my view alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency." Testifying before the House of Commons Special Committee, Nov. 18.

Peter MacKay: "Clearly the reality is there is no credible evidence, none, zero, to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused." Question Period, Nov. 19.

John Baird: "I should remind members opposite that there has never been a single, solitary proven allegation involving a transferred Taliban prisoner." Question Period, Nov. 20.

Peter MacKay: "There has never been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse of a detainee, a Taliban prisoner, transferred by Canadian Forces." Question Period, Dec. 2.

General Walter Natynczyk, Chief of Defence Staff: "I want to correct my statement made to the [Special Committee] yesterday...The individual who was beaten by the Afghan police was in fact in Canadian custody [on June 14, 2006]..." Press Conference at National Defence Headquarters, Dec. 9.

Section Commander's Report from Afghanistan, quoted by General Natynczyk: "We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over to ensure that if the Afghan national police did assault him as it happened in the past, that we would have a visual record of his condition." Field Report, June 14, 2006.

Stephen Harper: "It's the opposition who is accusing our soldiers of committing war crimes -- not this government...this government has defended, in all cases, our Canadian soldiers' actions." In French in Question Period, Dec. 9.
Advertising

The record is clear. The ground on which the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, was standing when he said there was "no evidence" to substantiate the testimony of ex-diplomat and intelligence officer Richard Colvin has been pulled out from under him.

Prior to the bombshell dropped on the government by General Natynczyk, MacKay had gone as far as to say on CTV's Power Play on Nov. 19 that Colvin's accusations were based on information which may have been propagated by Taliban sources. In other words, Colvin was likely a Taliban dupe.

This is the hallmark of the Harper government. When its members are pushed into a tight corner, they lash out at critics and political opponents, labeling them unpatriotic cretins who prefer the Taliban to Canada's brave soldiers. Meanwhile, they alone -- the Conservatives -- walk the lonely path of virtue, serving the nation in a difficult hour.

Even when they have been exposed as incompetents or liars engaged in a deliberate cover-up, the members of this government concede nothing. As far as they are concerned, there will be no independent inquiry into the detainee scandal.

Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay are cynically talking out the clock. The House of Commons is about to rise for the Christmas recess and will not sit again until the end of January. By that time, they hope, Canadians will have moved on to other concerns.

Watching Peter MacKay in Question Period and delivering testimony to the parliamentary committee has been instructive. He repeats the same answer over and over, stressing the virtue of our soldiers and the perfidy of the opposition parties. In the parliamentary committee, his opening statement went on so long that, aided by a couple of breaks for votes in the House, he only had to face a few questions from the committee members. In answering those questions, he typically returned to square one, describing the mission and its purposes, and saying next to nothing about the issues raised. Later, of course, the Conservatives will insist that they were compliant in cooperating with the committee, yet another reason why no special inquiry is needed.

The government is making the assumption that Canadians are too befuddled to follow the details of all of this. Harper and his colleagues believe that if they hunker down and stick to their line, nothing will harm them. They cynically believe that torture in Afghanistan is an issue that only concerns a few pointy-heads, not the majority of double-double drinking Canadians.

And then one fine day with another election, and a majority, the Conservatives won't ever have to listen to the nobodies on the other side of the aisle in the irrelevant "talking shop" that is Parliament.

James Laxer, a professor of political science in the department of equity studies at York University, is the author of Mission of Folly: Canada and Afghanistan.

[sky's the limit]

Excerpts from diplomat's letter on Afghan torture issue

(CP) – 4 hours ago

OTTAWA — Excerpts from diplomat Richard Colvin's Dec. 16 letter to the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan:

On the government claim it heard no allegations of "torture" prior to April 2007:

"... in early March 2007, I informed an interagency meeting of some 12 to 15 officials in Ottawa that, 'The NDS tortures people, that's what they do, and if we don't want our detainees tortured, we shouldn't give them to the NDS.' ... The response from the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM) note-taker was to stop writing and put down her pen."

"A U.S. State Department report of March 8, 2006. It noted that, 'there continue to be instances in which security and factional forces committed extrajudicial killings and torture The following human rights problems were reported: Extrajudicial killings; torture; poor prison conditions; official impunity; (and) prolonged pretrial detention. Credible observers reported that local (provincial) authorities routinely tortured and abused detainees. Torture and abuse consisted of pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual abuse and sodomy. Prison conditions remained poor, and prisons were severely overcrowded and unsanitary. Prisoners were reportedly beaten, tortured, and denied adequate fooda"'

"A report by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan of March 7, 2006 ('The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security.') The UN secretary general wrote: 'Reports of the use of torture and other forms ill-treatment by the NDS are frequent..."'

On the government claim there were no credible reports of torture of a Canadian-transferred detainee until November 2007:

"After the MOU was signed, Canadian officials in Kandahar began the process of identifying, locating and - if they were still in custody - interviewing the substantial number of Afghans already detained and transferred to the NDS. They established that four detainees had been transferred from the NDS 5 in Kandahar to the NDS in Kabul. The embassy was therefore requested to try to locate and monitor them.

"On 5/ 6 June, 2007, a four-person embassy monitoring team visited Sederat, the main NDS jail in Kabul, to try to find and interview these four detainees.... about 10 or 15 minutes into each interview, we asked each detainee about their treatment in Kandahar. All three then reported maltreatment or torture. All three moreover had marks on their body. We judged the accounts of all three to be credible. (Our embassy monitoring team included the head of the consular section, who had been trained in recognizing signs of torture, as well as a Pashto-language interpreter.)"

"The second detainee ('Detainee 2'), ... did not elaborate on what had happened to him in Kandahar. However, our consular officer noticed that he had new growth on two of his toenails. These marks were consistent with somebody having their toenails pulled out..."

"Detainee 4 told us 'that he was hit on his feet with a cable or 'big wire' and forced to stand for two days, but 'that's all.' He showed us a mark on the back of his ankle, which he said was from the cable."'

"In May and early June, the PRT in Kandahar also began to monitor Canadian-transferred detainees. These visits also turned up credible reports of torture. For example, on 4 June, 2007, a team from the PRT interviewed a Canadian-transferred detainee in Sarpoza who reported that he had been 'beaten with electrical cables while blindfolded' while in NDS custody."

On the government claim that it took action as soon as it was informed:

"All this information - internal reporting from Canadian officials in the field, reports from the US and UN, plus face-to-face interventions with policy-makers - had no visible impact on Canadian detainee practices. From February 2006 (when the Canadian battle group first deployed) to May 3, 2007 (when Canada signed a new Memorandum of Understanding on detainees that gave us the right to monitor), our detainees continued to be transferred to the NDS, despite a substantial risk of abuse or torture."

"Unlike our NATO allies in the south, we chose not to monitor our detainees."

"Even after the new MOU was signed, Ottawa for the first five months did not send a dedicated DFAIT monitor to conduct the monitoring. Monitoring in Kandahar was implemented by a rotating pool of officers, some on very short deployments. As a result, Canadian detainees in NDS custody in Kandahar remained at risk of torture. When a dedicated monitor was finally sent out in late October 2007, he quickly found conclusive evidence of continued torture. This finally triggered a Canadian decision to stop transfers."

"From the PRT's warning of 2 June, 2006 - which noted serious concerns about the treatment of Canadian detainees in Afghan custody - until the cessation of transfers to the NDS was seventeen months.

On the government claim that Afghan detainees are trained to claim torture:

Afghans detained by Canada, as deputy Task Force Afghanistan commander Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Putt stated to the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) were primarily 'local yokels.' Many if not most are illiterate... Witnesses who testified that 'the Taliban are trained to claim torture' seem to be confusing Taliban insurgents (poorly educated Pashtuns, usually illiterate, with a parochial, Afghanistan-centred agenda) with al-Qa'ida terrorists (international jihadists, often highly educated). There is to our knowledge no Taliban equivalent of the al-Qa'ida 'Manchester manual,' which was aimed at a sophisticated, literate audience."

On the claim that there was no option but to hand detainees to Afghan intelligence in Kandahar:

"There were at least three viable alternatives... The first option was to build or renovate a joint detention facility for all detainees taken in the south... The second option was to transfer our detainees to Kabul.... A third option was to transfer detainees directly to the Ministry of Interior/ Ministry of Justice..."

On the claim Afghans were only detained if there was proof that they were insurgents:

"... it was the NDS that told us that many or most of our detainees were unconnected to the insurgency. This assessment was reported to Ottawa. The NDS also told us that, because the intelligence value of Canadian-transferred detainees was so low, it did not want them.

On the claim embassy/PRT reporting was unreliable:

"Reports on detainees from the PRT (May and June 2006) and embassy (August 1, 2006 until April 14, 007) were based exclusively on the following sources: 1. Intelligence services, both Afghan and foreign, and intelligence products; 2. Relevant NATO embassies; 3. ISAF; The United Nations and European Union missions; 5. Relevant human-rights organizations."

"In sum, we had access to very reliable sources and very good information."

On the claim Ottawa encouraged accurate, rigorous, fact-based reporting:

"Interdepartmental Co-ordinator for Afghanistan David Mulroney suggested that the only reason reports were edited was to remove 'opinion' or 'non-fact based' information. This is not correct. Instead, embassy staffers were told that they should not report information, however accurate, that conflicted with the government's public messaging."

"For example, Ambassador Lalani instructed that we not report that the security situation was deteriorating. This followed an embassy report to Ottawa in which we noted that the Afghan Minister of Defence judged security to be getting worse - a view shared by our allies, and corroborated by violence trends and other metrics. Nevertheless, Mr. Mulroney sent instructions via Ambassador Lalani that we should either not mention the security situation at all, or to assert that it was getting better. The ambassador accordingly sent a report in which he said security was improving."

"In September 2007, an embassy staffer, in response to a written request from DFAIT's Afghanistan Task force to contribute to a security assessment by one of our NATO allies, sent a report that security in Kandahar had got worse and was likely to further deteriorate. Mr. Mulroney severely rebuked the officer in writing."

On the claim embassy reporting was not censored:

"After the embassy sent out its annual 2006 human-rights report for Afghanistan, which repeatedly used the word 'torture,' Mr. Mulroney told us in person that we should be 'very careful' about what we put in future reports. In the context, we interpreted this as an attempt to discourage us from using the word "torture" in future such reports."

After sending out the embassy's April 24 and April 25 recommendation on detainees, which included some new information (for example, that many of the detainees were unconnected to the insurgency), I was phoned by Assistant Deputy Minister Colleen Swords. She told me that in future, it would be better not to put things in writing but to use the phone. She testified to the Committee that the reason she made that phone call me was to stress that we should use the phone first, and to write later. This is incorrect. Her message to me was that I should use the phone instead of writing..."

On the government claim that Colvin's testimony was not credible:

"... any reporting sent from the embassy in Kabul expressed the views of the whole embassy, not one individual."

" .... some officials have suggested that I only left the PRT once and was mostly confined to compounds. For the record, I went "outside the wire" in Kandahar at least eleven times... In Kabul, I left the protected embassy zone (presumably "the wire") an average of twice a day - probably 500 times in total.

On the claim by generals that they don't read all reports and should have been informed:

"The reporting from the PRT and embassy clearly identifies the problems in Canadian detainee practices, as well as concerns about the detainees' treatment. The generals said they never read those or other relevant reports. However, it was their obligation to be informed."

"Second, the generals' suggestion that 'if only we had been told, we would have acted,' is contradicted by their actions on governor of Kandahar Asadullah Khalid. We had good information, early on, that Asadullah was an unusually bad actor on human rights, and also had serious deficits in the spheres of governance, rule-of-law and narcotics. The PRT, and subsequently the embassy in Kabul, recommended both in writing and orally that he be replaced. However, senior Canadian officers intervened twice to keep him in place."

"Third, the generals were not in DFAIT's chain of command. We reported back to DFAIT HQ in Ottawa. It was the job of HQ to engage with the military leadership and to sort out policy. Our job was to provide input to policy, not to beat senior officials over the head with our reports when they were in our physical vicinity."

[ragbagflyer]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/ ... ycott.html

Tories skip Afghan committee meeting
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 | 9:03 PM ET Comments658Recommend250
CBC News
Chairs normally filled by Conservative MPs sit vacant at Tuesday's meeting of the Commons special committee on Afghanistan, which was unable to go ahead due to lack of a quorum.Chairs normally filled by Conservative MPs sit vacant at Tuesday's meeting of the Commons special committee on Afghanistan, which was unable to go ahead due to lack of a quorum. (CBC)

An emergency meeting of the special Commons committee on Afghanistan could not go ahead Tuesday when all seven Conservative members failed to show up.

The committee, which is looking into what Canada knew about alleged abuse of prisoners in Afghan jails, requires a quorum of seven members. The no-show by Conservative MPs left it with just six.

The Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois members invited the media into the room to show them the empty chairs and talked informally among themselves.

However, no clerk was present and nothing was accomplished in terms of deciding what witnesses to hear from next or in scheduling future meetings.

The Tory boycott left opposition MPs frustrated and fuelled speculation that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning to prorogue Parliament — a move that would block further committee meetings until as late as March.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar was visibly angry, saying government MPs are paid to show up.
'Playing politics'

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh called it "a sad day." Dosanjh said there is no more important debate for parliamentarians than the conduct of a war and accused the government of evading its responsibility.

"This is a meeting of the special committee on Afghanistan, looking at the issue where we have sent our men and women into harm's way," he said. "They're dying for us and this government is playing politics with an issue as serious and abhorrent as torture."

Dosanjh said the government "deeply underestimates" the desire of Canadians to know what is being done in their name overseas.

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, said holding an emergency meeting for planning purposes was unnecessary.

"Having an emergency meeting for planning is a waste of time and a waste of money," he said, adding that the Conservatives had suggested the work could be handled through a teleconference, allowing MPs to remain in their ridings.

"We are simply not going to play their partisan games," Hawn said from Edmonton. "This is an issue that was not an emergency to handle before Christmas."

"This is a planning meeting, not a meeting to hear witnesses," he said.

Asked about opposition statements that they were unaware of the offer of a teleconference, Hawn said the option was discussed with the vice-chair of the committee.

"If they didn't know about that, they need to talk amongst themselves," he said.

[ragbagflyer]

More signs of our eroding "democracy".

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepoliti ... it.html

For further reading/back story see part one.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolit ... -one.html

Part 2 - So, is this the death of the committee system as we know it?


* By Kady O'Malley

Short answer: Not exactly, but it does reveal the existence of a previously little-known loophole.

As you can see, while there are plenty of past examples of governments -- well, this government, anyway -- using procedural tricks to hamstring hapless committees, this does appear to be the first time that they've been able to use quorum to their advantage, thanks to the somewhat unique terms of reference of the Afghanistan committee, which sets quorum at 7 - one more than a majority - and also requires the presence of at least one member of the government for any proceedings.

That may sound like a mere technical detail, but it is significantly different from the rules that govern most standing committees, which require a majority for quorum -- either six, or seven members, depending on the total, and not including the chair -- but which can, in certain circumstances, operate with a reduced quorum of just three members, plus the chair. The only stipulation is that at least one opposition member be present; there is no requirement that a member of the government be there as well. They can't hold votes or introduce motions, but they can receive evidence. In other words, if the Afghanistan committee used the same rules as standing committees, there would have been nothing stopping the vice-chair - Liberal Bryon Wilfert - from taking the chair on Tuesday, although they wouldn't have been able to pass a motion to schedule a subsequent meeting and invite witnesses. (At least, I don't think that would have been allowed, but if someone more procedurally omniscient thinks otherwise, feel free to correct me in the comments.)

Interestingly enough, back in February, when Parliament returned after prorogation and the current batch of committees were holding their respective organizational meetings, there was what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated strategy to have Conservative members put forward what seemed, at the time, to be a fairly minor amendment to the usual routine motion on reduced quorum. The exact wording of the proposed motion varied slightly from committee to committee -- in some cases, it would explicitly require that a member from the government be present, as well as one from the opposition; in other cases, every recognized party would have to be represented for the meeting to proceed.

It was proposed, and defeated at Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Government Operations and Estimates, Human Resources, International Trade, National Defence, Natural Resources and Status of Women -- and was accepted at Agriculture, Canadian Heritage, Finance, Fisheries and Oceans, and Foreign Affairs, which means that any of the five could, in theory, be shut down just as effectively as the Afghanistan committee if no one from the government side turns up.

(This, incidentally, is why it is the wise Whip's office that monitors the normally eye-glazing process of passing routine motions.)

[The Old Fogducker]

Just to counteract the barking of "Old Yeller" when he was locked in the corn crib, I've made a point of writing to the PMO to tell them this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, and let it slide.

I also wrote to my MP expressing the same thoughts ... get on with life and don't let the opposition turn this into something which seems far more important than is warranted.

Get on with running the country.

News coverage seems limited to whether it is a slow news day or not.

OFD

[Rockie]

So you don't think the government turning a blind eye to torture until public disclosure forces them to do something about it, then getting caught in persistent lies while attempting to destroy the credibility of diplomatic and intelligence officials who are only doing their job is serious? And shutting down parliamentary committees getting uncomfortably close to the truth is nothing to be concerned about?

[sky's the limit]

Just to counteract the barking of "Old Yeller" when he was locked in the corn crib, I've made a point of writing to the PMO to tell them this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, and let it slide.

I also wrote to my MP expressing the same thoughts ... get on with life and don't let the opposition turn this into something which seems far more important than is warranted.

Get on with running the country.

News coverage seems limited to whether it is a slow news day or not.

OFD

That's the part about you I find disturbing Foggy.

You can't see the forest for the trees, as the behaviour of this government is something that is detremental to ALL Canadians regardless of political leanings. You just don't get it I'm afraid, nor do most other people judging by the lack of response to this thread. I just shake my head at the lack of engagement in this country.

"Let it slide?" Riiiiiiight.... If there's ONE issue in the last number of years that shouldn't be let slide, it is this one. I'm sorry you're blinded to the point where you cannot see that.

Perhaps you'd like to pass me the name of your MP.

stl

[The Old Fogducker]

You are welcome to express your outrage ... and encouraged to do so, via the opposition party. Jack (Russel Terrier) Layton and Mr Ignathief have the knack of expressing shock and dismay down to a well rehearsed stage act which a subsection of Canadians find gratifying and soul-cleansing.

Here's a picture taken of me and the majority of Canadians when it comes to this topic .....

[sky's the limit]

And this, is why - to paraphrase Monty Python - I laugh in the general direction of so-called Democracy.....

Here's a picture taken of me and the majority of Canadians when it comes to this topic .....

It is a sad, but true fact. Most Canadians have their heads buried so deep in the sand that they don't even notice they're being bent over the proverbial barrel.

Sorry, you mentioned something about "opposition?" I was under the impression we ran without one.

stl

PS Standing by for the name of your MP.

[sky's the limit]

This is a government we can all be proud of - or not. At all. Pathetic. They continue to show no respect to the public, and unfortunately the so-called opposition is even worse.... so they get away with it.

stl

Parliament suspended until March 3


OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s suspension of Parliament until March won’t stop a public investigation into Canada’s treatment of Afghan detainees, opposition MPs vowed Wednesday.

Both the NDP and the Liberals said they may well hold informal public hearings in the new year on Afghanistan, whether or not the government is in session.

“It’s a real option,” said New Democrat foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar.

Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas told reporters Wednesday the prime minister will delay the return of Parliament until March 3 and unveil a budget the following day. Parliament was supposed to return Jan. 25.

Soudas said the new session will focus on putting the country on a firm footing as the economy continues to recover.

He also said the delay, until after the February Winter Olympics in Vancouver-Whistler, was not linked to the Afghanistan controversy which he termed “old news.”

But the deferral robs opposition MPs of a chance to hammer the Conservative government in Question Period every day over the Afghan detainees. It also means documents on Afghanistan requested by the House can’t be turned over until Parliament sits again. And it disbands the committee that was studying the issue.

Suspending Parliament — prorogation, as it’s formally called — also means government bills amended by the Liberal-dominated Senate, such as crime legislation and a consumer product safety bill, will be reintroduced in the House of Commons in their original form.

In fact, Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said proroguing kills 35 government bills, which must now wind their way through the parliamentary cycle from scratch. He said Harper is putting “a padlock on Parliament.”

In the interim period, the prime minister plans to fill five Senate vacancies, giving the Tories a plurality in the Red Chamber.

But critics Thursday focused on Afghanistan. “We can hold our own hearings,” said Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae. “Basically people can meet and if those meetings are held in public, if the reporters come, then you have a meeting.”

“Just because the Conservatives don’t show up for work doesn’t mean we can’t show up and do our work,” Dewar said. The NDP organized just such an informal committee hearing before Christmas at which witnesses discussed Afghanistan. Tory MPs boycotted it.

The decision to prorogue Parliament is made by the governor-general on the prime minister’s advice. Harper spoke with Gov.-Gen Michaelle Jean Wednesday by telephone.

Soudas avoided the word “prorogation,” however. The prime minister last prorogued Parliament in late 2008, after a poorly received budget and threats from a coalition of opposition parties to try to form a new government.

University of Ottawa history Professor Michael Behiels said it’s unusual for a prime minister not to consult the governor-general face-to-face. “He’s not showing constitutional manners, really,” Behiels said.

Dewar called it “unprecedented.

“What’s he going to do next time, Twitter the governor-general?”

The governor-general’s office did not return Sun Media’s calls Wednesday afternoon.