Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[TCBF]

- I have often thought that the eventual passing of the last of our WW2 vets will cause the gloves to come off on all sides, once those who fought what many Canadians call 'Our Last Good War' are no longer here to answer questions. Then, those of us serving will really be under the microscope, and labelled as 'War Criminals'.

- In any case, I think that any investigation should go all the way back into WW2.  As the Cdn Army helped liberate France, Belgium and the Netherlands, they no doubt often turned over local collaborators and combatants (Dutch SS, etc.) to the Resistance movements. Those resistance movements represented their governments in exile, which are the forebears of their governments today.  Should we not ask the French, Belgian and Dutch governments how they treated the traitors we handed over to them?

- Do you think they set a good example for Afghanistan to follow?

 

[MarkOttawa]

From Terry Glavin:

"The news managers here in Canada have trouble understanding the Afghan story. . ."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/news-managers-here-in-canada-have.html

When I did this interview with Rex Murphy - it's about the bizarre disconnect between the here-and-now reality of Afghan detainee transfers in the real world, in Kandahar, and the "Afghan detainee" preoccupations of certain media personalities embedded in the Ottawa press gallery - it was late at night. I'd been up for hours. I'd just arrived at Camp Mirage after a flight from Kandahar Air Field in one those of those flying warehouses known as Globemasters and a fierce thirst was upon me. This is my excuse for being a bit impatient and stern about it all, although I reckon I did hold up my end fairly well anyway.

But you really need to listen to this interview with Matthew Fisher on the subject, towards the end of an conversation that provides a rare overview of Canada's engagements in Afghanistan in their proper context. I awaited Matthew's verdict on the "detainee issue" with some trepidation, because there is no Canadian reporter who knows these subjects better than Matthew does. As it turns out, Matthew was even more full-throated about it all than I was...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

- I have often thought that the eventual passing of the last of our WW2 vets will cause the gloves to come off on all sides, once those who fought what many Canadians call 'Our Last Good War' are no longer here to answer questions. Then, those of us serving will really be under the microscope, and labelled as 'War Criminals'.

- In any case, I think that any investigation should go all the way back into WW2.  As the Cdn Army helped liberate France, Belgium and the Netherlands, they no doubt often turned over local collaborators and combatants (Dutch SS, etc.) to the Resistance movements. Those resistance movements represented their governments in exile, which are the forebears of their governments today.  Should we not ask the French, Belgian and Dutch governments how they treated the traitors we handed over to them?

- Do you think they set a good example for Afghanistan to follow?

I seem to remember Mussolini and his mistress hanging from a lamp post. I also seem to remember French women who had collaborated with the Nazis had their heads shaved so everyone could see who the collaborators were.
Would the acid thrower be considered a war criminal?

 

[mariomike]

I also seem to remember French women who had collaborated with the Nazis had their heads shaved so everyone could see who the collaborators were.

If they were lucky. I have read accounts from Canadian airmen shot down in France who evaded capture and joined the Resistance. They reported that young French girls in their teens were machine-gunned by the Resistance for consorting with Germans.
Ref: "Massacre Over the Marne: Massacre at Robert-Espagne" page: 190-191.

I don't know how widespread this was. The time period reported was after D-Day and before the Liberation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At last, we are getting down to brass tacks in this opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/744743

Accusations of war crimes risky for Liberals

Ezra Levant

Earlier this month, Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, described a lone diplomat's allegations as "the fact that this government ignored the warnings of torture, sent prisoners to Afghan jails at the risk of torture, which is a war crime, which is an absolute war crime."

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

Pressed to clarify if he was accusing Canadian soldiers of committing war crimes, Dosanjh immediately backed down: "I have not mentioned our troops once."

Then what did he mean?

Dosanjh has indeed directed his criticisms at the Canadian Forces. On a national TV panel, he criticized Canadian military leaders for being "morally weak" and accused the Canadian Forces – not just the Conservative government – of a "cover-up."

Other Liberals have gone even further. On CTV, Liberal spin doctor Warren Kinsella compared what Canadians are doing in Afghanistan to what Americans did in Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi jail where prisoners were tortured by rogue U.S. troops. Despite the interviewer's statement that there was no comparison with Abu Ghraib, Kinsella repeatedly insisted "we don't know that." Not even Richard Colvin, the diplomat at the centre of the storm, has alleged that Canadian Forces committed any torture.

It's one thing to slander the government – taking harsh criticism is part of the job description of politicians –but to suggest the men and women of the Canadian Forces are war criminals is demoralizing to our troops overseas who have enough to worry about without being a partisan punching bag.

Our soldiers probably don't worry too much about what a politician says about them. But winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is a high priority in this operation and Canada's ethical reputation is particularly important as we train the Afghan army. It's one thing when a Taliban propagandist claims that the Canadian Forces are immoral crusaders – it's quite another when a Liberal front-bencher says they're "absolutely" accused of war crimes.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has done something strange by making two former NDP premiers – Dosanjh and Bob Rae – his point men on this issue. Although Canada's involvement in the Afghan war was a Liberal initiative dating back eight years, it has always been a sore point for the party's left wing. The party was able to control its anti-war, anti-military and anti-U.S. instincts for the four years the Liberals managed the war. But since then, their anti-war faction has been ascendant.

From a partisan point of view, it's risky. Ignatieff knows from experience how hurtful accusations of war crimes can be. In 2006, he accused Israel of crimes in its war against Hezbollah and it led to the resignation of his Toronto leadership campaign co-chair. If accusing foreign allies of war crimes is a political faux pas, surely making the same accusation against our own troops is far worse.

The bubble of Parliament Hill is not a good place to get a read on public sentiments about the war. As CSIS boss Dick Fadden noted this fall, it has become fashionable in some media, legal and political circles to cast terrorists as lovable folk heroes and to view our security and military services as untrustworthy thugs. But if recent polls are any guide, that elite opinion is not shared by grassroots Canadians who universally admire the moral fibre of our troops and their personal sacrifices.

Ignatieff should rein in his loose cannons for the good of the country. But he should also do it for the good of his party. Given his past writings supporting the use of torture and targeted assassinations, it's unlikely that many anti-war activists would choose his party over the purer peaceniks of the NDP, Bloc and Green party. Even with Dosanjh and Rae on the file, Ignatieff isn't likely to pick up votes on this issue. But he can lose mainstream voters.

The Liberals' increasing anti-troops radicalism shows how marginalized the party has become out of power. Four years ago, the Liberals could handle grave responsibilities of state like prosecuting a war. Now they indulge in sloganeering more suited to a permanent opposition party.

Ignatieff eventually apologized for his Israel war crimes comment. Will he ask Dosanjh and Kinsella to apologize for theirs?

Ezra Levant is a Calgary-based commentator and Conservative volunteer.

Levant is right: Dosanjh, most notably, has accused Canadian soldiers of war crimes. That’s the crux of the complaint LGen (ret’d) Gautier made when he testified, under oath, and said he and his wife were shocked to be watching TV and to hear him (Gauthier) being called a war criminal by a Canadian politician. Dosanj has tarred Gauthier and Fraser (then the commander on the ground) and Hillier with the war criminal brush. It is time for him and his party (Prince Michael Igfnatieff must lead) to demand that criminal  charges are pressed against several Canadian generals and some of their bosses and subordinates, too.  Either that or Dosanjh, et al, should go out into the garden and eat worms* – which is about all he’s/they’re fit to do.

In any event the Conservative Party and its media friends – and it has some – should call the Liberals out on this.


----------
* Thanks to James Kennaway for that excellent phrase.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Facts: The previous Liberal government and Afghan detainees
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/facts-previous-liberal-government-and.html

Further to this post,

'"Torture in Afghanistan: The Liberals knew"'redux
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/torture-in-afghanistan-liberals-knew.html

here is a translation from a friend of a story in La Presse, April 28, 2007;
http://www.cepes.uqam.ca/spip.php?article478
draw your own conclusions over what should be the extent of any enquiry, should one be held. And what happened to those detainees transferred to the Americans? Where is, and was, the outcry?

'The Liberals were in the know'...

One wonders why the current media "cover-up" continues concerning what the Liberal government knew and when they knew it.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Old Sweat]

Yesterday on CBC Newsworld John McCallum accused Canadian soldiers of commiting war crimes in Afghanistan. Rather than pursuing the issue, the interviewer changed the subject. While the CPC highlighted his statements, the MSM largely has chosen to ignore them.

The interview and the resulting story on the CBC website may be viewed here. (If it is not available, check smalldeadanimals.com)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/the-wc-puddledid-mccallum-step-in-it.html

 

[Rifleman62]

McCallum must be collecting empties again to say something that unsubstanciated. No parliamentary privilege. Sue the bastard.

 

[Rifleman62]

If you want to read the up to date summary of the Liberals stating the CF committed war crimes, including the video clips of who said what, read  Ezra Levant:

http://ezralevant.com/2010/01/the-liberal-smear-campaign-aga.html

Disgusting. and of course the media love repeating it, with no counterpoints. In fact, the media reinforce the LPC.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Everybody's said it better than I can, so I offer a bit of librarian-style support to the cause:

1)  Here's a link, via Archive.org, to the April 2007 French-language article highlighting what the Liberals knew about detainee conditions then, and

2)  Here's a link to the PDF of that article in case the Archive.org link doesn't work.

Now, I can't wait to see MSM get on the Liberals' case on this.....

 

[MarkOttawa]

More at The Torch:

Maybe some former Liberal ministers should be worrying about their asses
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/liberal-ministers-might-do-well-to.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

More comments on what the Liberals knew:

http://alphamikefox.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-liberals-knew.html

What the Liberals Knew

From the Torch, originally from the La Presse (can't find it online, except in cache)

Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal.

From 2002 to 2005, the Canadian practice regarding Afghan detainees suspected of Taliban ties was to hand them over to US military authorities. Ottawa decided to shift its transfers to Afghan authorities, however, in response to abuse allegations at the Guantánamo Bay internment center and the controversy that erupted over revelations of torture and degradation at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The December 2005 agreement to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities was concluded despite the content of annual reports from Canadian diplomats covering broad assessments of Afghanistan’s progress in human rights protection and the development of democratic institutions. According to a 2004 report: "The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concludes from its monitors’ assessments that torture remains a current practice, particularly during the early stages of police investigations, in order to extract confessions from prisoners.”

While the Afghan government was not accused of condoning physical violence in the treatment of prisoners, a 2005 report filed by Canadian diplomats noted that the Afghan military, police and intelligence services were implicated in arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, extortion, torture, and the murder of criminal suspects. Police commanders and officers were also implicated in many allegations of rape. The alleged victims included women, girls and boys.

While Liberal deputy leader John McCallum was defence minister in 2003, his colleague Bill Graham was foreign affairs minister. In an interview, Mr McCallum told La Presse had never seen the Foreign Affairs’ documents. Mr Graham took over as defence minister in June 2004 and still held the post when Canada signed the agreement in December 2005.

An anonymous Liberal source, well acquainted with the situation, said the Martin government believed that the situation had improved in Afghan prisons when the agreement was concluded: "From 2002 to 2005, we transferred our prisoners to the Americans. But that became politically untenable because of the stories about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. These events, and our certainty that things had improved in the Afghan prison system, conviced us to sign the detainee transfer agreement with the Afghans," the source explained.

However, the Martin government had received annual reports that ill-treatment in Afghan prisoners was commonplace, and the reports closely compare with the report disclosed in a Toronto daily newspaper Wednesday that has caused such a stir in the House of Commons. That document shows that going back to 2006, torture has been a routine practice in Afghan prisons. Opposition parties cited these reports to accuse the Harper government of closing its eyes on violations of Afghan prisoners’ rights. The Globe and Mail also reported this week that about 30 Taliban prisoners say they were abused by local Afghan police after they were transferred by Canadian soldiers.

The Harper government didn’t help its cause this week, making several contradictory statements about Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers and delivered to local authorities in the Kandahar area. Defence minister Gordon O'Connor was the source of the confusion and plunged the Conservatives into embarrassment. The minister initially said that the Independent Human Rights Commission monitors the condition of prisoners to ensure they are well treated, but the commission does not have the financial means nor the staff to undertake the task.

Then, on Wednesday, Mr O'Connor said that Canada had concluded an agreement with authorities in Kandahar allowing Canadian soldiers a right of access to Afghan detainees to ensure they’re not being ill-treated. This was contradicted 24 hours later by prime minister Stephen Harper, who confirmed in the House of Commons on Thursday that no formal agreement exists to allow this access, but that the Canadian authorities hoped to conclude one soon.

Then public safety minister Stockwell Day added to confusion when he said that for several weeks Corrections Canada staff had been afforded access to the Afghan prisons in the Kandahar area. Then Mr Day moderated his remarks by affirming that two Corrections Canada staff members had been sent to Afghanistan to advise local prison authorities, and then he he explained that their mandate had been
broadened so that they could look into the the practice of torture in Afghan prisons.

 

[Rifleman62]

Try to find this in the mainstream print and TV media.

 

[observor 69]

Yesterday on CBC Newsworld John McCallum accused Canadian soldiers of commiting war crimes in Afghanistan. Rather than pursuing the issue, the interviewer changed the subject. While the CPC highlighted his statements, the MSM largely has chosen to ignore them.

The interview and the resulting story on the CBC website may be viewed here. (If it is not available, check smalldeadanimals.com)

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/the-wc-puddledid-mccallum-step-in-it.html

Yes it is still available on the CBC site. As far as I can see he is clearly talking about the government not military personal.


McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."

Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."

McCallum: "It's the government."

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baden Guy: The fact remains that the government that authorized the policy, which the CF in the field were bound to follow, of turning over detainees to the Afghans was the Liberal one that agreed to the Dec. 2005 agreement.  So if there is any (perishingly small) chance of any war crimes action being brought anywhere the responsible Liberal ministers would be first in the dock.

Especially given the information concerning Afghan government treatment of prisoners about which those Liberal ministers should have been well aware.  Pots and kettles and all that.

To repeat:

Maybe some former Liberal ministers should be worrying about their asses
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/liberal-ministers-might-do-well-to.html

An idea.  Let all responsible ministers, Liberal and Conservative, senior bureaucrats and CF officers, be tried and thrown in the clink if we Canadians are to be so, er,  über-punctilious.  I cannot think of any other country that is so sillily senstive to its self-centred sensibilities.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes it is still available on the CBC site. As far as I can see he is clearly talking about the government not military personal.


McCallum: "I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they're covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues."

Meharchand: "You know, we could digress here and talk about who's handing over, is it the Canadian soldiers who you're accusing of war crimes, is it the government, I don't want to go there in this interview."

McCallum: "It's the government."

But the "government" didn't turn anyone over to the Afghans; its armed servants (as opposed to its civil servants) did that and, arguably, perhaps they should not have done so. If the government gives an unlawful order then soldiers are, by law, duty bound not to obey it. McCallum and Dosanjh know that; they know that MacKay and Harper didn't do anything wrong but they still toss out the accusations when they must know that the dirt can hit only uniformed military people: Hiller (their prime target, I suspect), Gauthier, Fraser and so on down the line. The "war crimes" talk threatens soldiers only. Mark my words, some smart, anti-Western civil rights lawyer will, sooner later, file charges against Hiller et al saying that the 2005 (Liberal) agreement was manifestly improper and Hillier and his subordinates, being reasonable men, must have known that but they proceeded to obey an unlawful command anyway and they are, de fact, guilty of a war crime.

 

[ModlrMike]

ER, you've hit the nail on the head.

Nuremberg was quite clear in establishing that there is no difference between those who give the orders and those who carry them out. Regardless of what McCallum thinks he said, it's quite clear to me what he actually said.

(Not intending to invoke Godwin's Law here.)

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: I think we are saying much the same thing in a different fashion.  From the Torch post previously linked to:

...
Those who legally would have prime responsibility for war crimes would the members of the government (first the Liberals, then the Conservatives), the senior bureaucrats and the senior CF officers responsible for putting, and then keeping, that policy in place...

But really it is all a Canadian political and media nonsense without, as said in the comment below,

... any (perishingly small) chance of any war crimes action being brought anywhere...

Except perhaps one must concede in Canada, what with professors Byers and Attaran and their ilk.  In no serious country would this matter ever have become the obsession it has here.  From which I draw my own ineluctable conclusion.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

I was wondering if Baden Guy read  Ezra Levant's blog, and if he did, what he now thought of the LPC, as a retired member of the CF.

Must be the water.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is getting ridiculous.

Colvin is muddying the waters again, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/richard-colvin-faces-reprisal-for-detainee-testimony/article1443048/

Richard Colvin faces 'reprisal' for detainee testimony
Letter accuses Conservative government of retaliating against diplomat who blew whistle on Afghan torture by refusing to pay his legal bills

Steven Chase

Ottawa

Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

The Canadian diplomat who charged that Ottawa turned a blind eye to his warnings about torture of Afghan prisoners now says he's being punished by the Harper government for speaking out.
Richard Colvin's lawyer talks of this "reprisal" in a letter released today that says Ottawa is ignoring his requests for further legal aid funding as he prepares to appear before an inquiry investigating the handling of Afghan prisoners.

Mr. Colvin, who reignited the long-simmering Afghan detainee issue last fall, is entitled to government funding because he's a public servant.

But the government has failed to respond to requests to resolve the legal bills of Mr. Colvin, who was posted to Afghanistan for 17 months between 2006 and 2007. It offered an initial amount last fall, which Mr. Colvin's lawyers said was insufficient to cover costs.

The Conservatives launched harsh attacks on the public servant after his testimony before a Parliamentary committee last fall, dismissing his credibility and suggesting he'd been duped by Taliban propaganda.

Mr. Colvin first emerged on the Afghan file last October when he told the Military Police Complaints Commission via affidavit that he'd raised early red flags about the torture of prisoners back in May and June of 2006.

"Coupled with the government's public attacks on Mr. Colvin and his testimony before the Special Committee on ... Afghanistan, our client is left with the reasonable belief that the denial of further legal indemnification is a reprisal for his participation before the committee and the commission," lawyer Owen Rees wrote in a letter sent to the Military Police Complaints Commission today.

The commission is preparing to resume hearings into the Afghan detainee matter in late March and Mr. Colvin's testimony is expected to play a role in this inquiry.

Without legal representation, Mr. Rees said, it would be difficult for Mr. Colvin to continue to testify before the commission.

"The government of Canada's inaction in this regard is impeding our client's ability to participate as a witness before the commission with the assistance of legal counsel, which is appropriate and necessary given the complexity of the legal issues raised, including the government's claims of national security confidentiality," he wrote.

The government has denied all of Mr. Colvin's allegations.

"There are incredible holes in the story that have to be examined," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons at the time, rejecting calls for a public inquiry.

With a report from The Canadian Press

I hold no brief for or against Colvin but, on a political level, he is dangerous to the government and it and the Conservative brand are taking unnecessary hits from him and his lawyer.

The solution is simple: a full blown public inquiry that goes all the way back to 2001/02 and asks:

• How did we get into this mess, in the first place?

• Who approved the original, unsatisfactory detainee handling procedures?

• Why did they, whoever ‘they’ were, approve an unsatisfactory arrangement?

• Why did it take so long to change the procedures?

• Etc

A full inquiry will, immediately and permanently, shut down the anti-government propaganda machine being fuelled by the Liberal Party of Canada and the media.

A full inquiry will assign a major share of the blame to the governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin – governments in which Ujjal Dosanjh and John McCallum served as ministers.

A full inquiry will defuse attempts by e.g. Attaran et al to haul Canadian military members (or, maybe, politicians) in front of some international kangaroo court.

I cannot understand why Harper doesn’t pull the plug on Colvin, Dosanjh, McCallum, etc and put the whole thing into long term legal limbo.