Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[GAP]

Hébert: Will Speaker's ruling on detainees spark election?
Article Link
By Chantal Hébert National Columnist

Over his nine years as Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken has ruled on hundreds of points of privilege but none of his many decisions falls in the same high-stakes category as the ruling he will soon have to render as part of the latest battle of wills between the opposition parties and Stephen Harper's minority government.

As Milliken – a lifelong student of Parliament – is well aware, his verdict on the handling of the documents pertaining to the Afghan detainees issue is bound for the history books.

It will almost certainly come to the attention of the Supreme Court and it also could set off an election campaign.

If he rules that the government is within its rights to ignore a House order to hand over the documents until they have been vetted by an outside party of its choice, Milliken will have clipped the wings of Parliament in a way that stands to accelerate its current decline into irrelevancy.

The executive powers of the government will have been reinforced for all time at the expense of Parliament.

But if he rules in favour of the opposition and orders the government to find a process that allows parliamentarians to be the judges of the balance between national security and accountability, the Speaker could set the ground for a spring election.

The opposition parties and, in particular, the Liberals are adamant that they are not seeking a snap campaign. But the matter is increasingly out of their hands and into those of the Speaker and, eventually, the Prime Minister.

No one who watched Harper in action over the time of the 2008 parliamentary crisis doubts that he would be sorely tempted to take his latest conflict with the minority Parliament to the people rather than bow to the opposition and the Speaker's will.
More on link

 

[leroi]

I like this one:

Afghan Detainees – The Real Issue
By Mischa Popoff: March 25, 2010

The Metropolitan

Reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copyright Act.

http://ow.ly/16U0US

In politics there are issues you can bludgeon your enemies with, but every now and then an issue arises that through its repetition will turn against you because a deeper issue lies within it.

What the Liberals and NDP fail to appreciate as they attack the Conservatives over the Afghan detainee issue is that at a visceral level Canadians just don’t care about Afghan detainees because they’re the enemy. There, I said it.

It would be different if Canadians were torturing Afghan detainees. Recall the national shame when photos of Somalian Shidane Arone came out in 1993. Bad things happen in war, but Chrétien survived that issue and Harper will survive this one.

It’s alleged that there’s a possibility that detainees are being “mistreated” at the hands of our Afghan allies; you know, the people we’re over there to protect. If our Afghan allies were torturing detainees that again would be different, but what’s alleged is mere “mistreatment” based solely on the testimony of the detainees themselves. Big difference.

Of course Conservatives don’t dare point this out because they’ll seem callous. So they’re forced to pretend to share, at least somewhat, in the Liberals’ and NDP’s concerns for human rights until this blows over. And yes, it will blow over because the enemy in this case avows to subjugate, enslave and kill those who are, allegedly, now mistreating them. Think about that for a second.

It must be difficult to feign sustained indignation when an Afghan tribesman gives a fat lip to a terrorist who just last week was threatening to kill him and his entire family, but so far everyone in Ottawa and the national media is managing just fine.

Now here’s the deeper issue: combatants who face our soldiers in a war zone have only two choices: fight and die, or surrender and be treated well. No exceptions. The former isn’t considered “polite talk” in Ottawa; our soldiers have been assigned many peacekeeping missions over the years but Canadians know soldiers are trained to kill the enemy before the enemy kills them, and that our boys and girls in uniform have always been, and will always be, soldiers.

The enemy in Afghanistan intends to kill as many of our soldiers as they can. As such, they are human targets for our soldiers until such time as they become detainees. They’re not a building or a munitions dump; they’re human beings who must be killed. There, I said it again.

There’s a willful ignorance of the realities of war in Ottawa which has, so far at least, allowed the Opposition to pretend Conservatives condone the mistreatment of prisoners of war. If this was true then surely the same would have been true when the Liberals were in charge. It’s the same Allied soldiers on the ground, right? But much more to the point, who really cares? Haven’t these people heard of priorities?

If the Opposition doesn’t stop with the false indignation over fat lips being inflicted on Afghan detainees by Afghans, they will pay a heavy price. Canadians don’t want their government to waste time ensuring that the same rights we enjoy are afforded to the enemy when the lives of our own soldiers and 28 million innocent Afghanis are at stake. Every terrorist that our soldiers capture, no matter what happens to him, is just lucky to be alive. ‘Nuff said.

The Liberals knew our soldiers were in the business of killing the enemy when they got us into Afghanistan, and they knew our boys and girls were experts at this trade even when weighted down by bureaucratic rules of engagement. They still know this; they’re just having a hard time watching as their political enemies make the best of the bad situation the Liberals got us into.

And now another Canadian diplomat with experience in Afghanistan has come forth to say she raised concerns about detainee mistreatment back in 2005, but her concerns were ignored. Let me think now… who was running the country back then? Wasn’t the Conservatives…. Hmmm, who could it have been?

Like I said, there are deeper issues at stake here.

Mischa Popoff is a freelance political writer with a degree in history. He can be heard on Kelowna’s AM 1150 on Friday mornings between 9 and 10.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting - when MSM do stories about documents they've obtained through Access to Information processes, they only VERY rarely share the material with readers who might see context by seeing the whole document.

Now, we see this - from the Toronto Star....:

On Thursday, the federal government released more than 500 heavily censored documents - totalling about 2,500 pages - comprised of handwritten investigators' notes, military reports and top-secret memos from 2006 to 2008 relating to Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The release comes amid complaints by opposition parties that the government is violating the rights of MPs to see documents related to how Canadian soldiers handled Afghan detainees. It is unclear whether this release comprises all the documents sought by Parliament.

Also at issue is whether documents should be censored. The Conservatives have asked retired Justice Frank Iacobucci to review the file and decide what information, if any, should be censored on the grounds of national security.

Click on a links below to read a PDF of a document; the documents are listed as named in the government's release. (Files are less than 4MB in size; most are about 300KB).

See something interesting? Leave a comment below ....

...and more clearly put by CBC.ca - highlights mine:

As Colleague McGregor announced earlier today, we've posted the full collection of Afghan detainee-related documents that were tabled in the House yesterday morning.

Our not-so-secret agenda? Call it an experiment in distributed research. We want to make sure that the 2,688 pages of medium to heavily-redacted data get the most thorough going-over possible, so we're going to try to harness the collective power -- or, more specifically, eyeballs -- of the CBC.ca/politics readerverse, so head on over to the ad hoc Inside Politics reading club and share your observations!

Greeeeeeeeat....  Journalism carried out by folks who would normally leave comments - and we know the calibre of THAT effort, don't we?

The idea of many eyes catching different things is actually a good one, but funny which stories the media apply the principle to, eh?  Like when there's too much for them to do themselves?  Or can't they trust the public with only as few documents?

 

[leroi]

Tony, I've never seen the media do this before. I haven't looked at the documents yet but could this cut-and-paste comment below be an example of the kind of public reaction MSM is anticipating, hoping for:

"Hard to read black marker. I can't tell if it's French, English, or Arabic, or whatever. How juvenile can you be ? How condescending ? Here read this !! Two boxes full of black ink ? Not only contempt of Parliament, but contempt for every Canadian."

 

[The Bread Guy]

It does happen from time to time, but only rarely:  a couple of examples here and here.

 

[burnaby]

I don't know if this problem have been talked about here on the forums but please bare with me.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/01/afghan-documents.html

there is plenty more of these articles.

From what I read on the CBC all of there article doesn't give a straight answer but just a bunch of speculation for masses to imagine.

I want to hear what the soldiers on the ground have to say, without the political BS.

my questions:

1) What is consider a threat to national security? The reason I ask is because the government is saying that it does not have to release any information to the public base on the premise of national security reasons.

2) Does the parliament have the right to request information? The reason I ask is because the opposition party is demanding they have the right to look over the detainee documents.

3) Base on the premise that this detainee problem happened at the beginning of the war; what was the CF and government operation procedure for dealing with prisoners? I am extremely interested for answer from the people (CF personel)  on the ground at that time.

4) Did the CF did anything wrong? From news articles it seems that they are implying that the CF and government is running wild and try to hide everything.

5) Is Afghan officials (military and civilian) trust worthy? I know that can't be 100% perfect but are they competent enough to improve. From news forums the general feeling of the masses is that we (Canada) is doing everything wrong, we shouldn't be there, its for oil, NWO, and every other nut job theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are security regulations, honoured, I fear, most often in the breach, that define what is to be classified at certain levels and why. Potential embarrassment to the minister is not now, never was and never shall be, world without end, amen, an acceptable reason to classify anything. Stupid orders, questions and comments by the high and mighty are, properly, the public's business unless the subject of the order, question or comment is, legitimately, classified.

Parliament's rights and its duties are poorly defined - as they should be. Parliament is sovereign in its own place; there can be no question about that and it must be able to compel ministers to to give them any information they (the ministers) have "in that place," but it is not clear, to me anyway, that Parliament can compel ministers to bring information, normally resident in and the proper business of their departments, to parliament for review.

By convention, which is a much, much more powerful force than anything in any written document, including the Constitution itself, advice to cabinet by officials is absolutely sacrosanct; it cannot be shared with anyone except the ministry of the day, for 30 years.

It can, likely will be argued, that the information sought by parliament is, properly, the property of the government (the Queen's Privy Council, which is also sovereign) and the "Queen on the Bench" (our courts, including the Supremes) cannot allow the "Queen in Parliament" (Parliament itself) to compel the "Queen in Council" (the government) to break the law. Further, it can be argued (but I suspect no one wants to go there lest we make a mockery of the principle of public access), that many, even most classified government documents can be seen as extensions of the documents which are already, conventionally, 'protected' from any scrutiny because they constitute advice to cabinet.

 

[GAP]

From what I read on the CBC all of there article doesn't give a straight answer but just a bunch of speculation for masses to imagine.

I want to hear what the soldiers on the ground have to say, without the political BS.

my questions: etc. etc.

I don't know what you expect serving members that frequent these boards to say in  answer to your questions, but if it was me, I would touch it with a 10 foot pole.

You are on the internet, with a blank profile and expecting people to jump into a parliamentary hissy fit? not likely....especially if you don't want it showing up in the Kelowna herald or whatever.... :

ER has given as clear an answer as could be reasonably expected.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an explanation (my explanation, anyway) of the "Queen on the Bench," "Queen in Council" and "Queen in parliament" thingy.

 

[burnaby]

I don't know what you expect serving members that frequent these boards to say in  answer to your questions, but if it was me, I would touch it with a 10 foot pole.

You are on the internet, with a blank profile and expecting people to jump into a parliamentary hissy fit? not likely....especially if you don't want it showing up in the Kelowna herald or whatever.... :

ER has given as clear an answer as could be reasonably expected.

Well sorry I'm not trying to step on anyone toes but as a student studying history and political science and as a civilian it is frustrating to wake up in the morning and read an article that accuse our troops of deliberately and knowingly had a hand in torture. I support our troops ("soldiers carry out policy; while politicians make policy") all the way; I believe (maybe I'm too idealistic for the real world) in what our troops are doing for a good cause ( or abstract/achievable goal). From what I can read and hear, from books, articles, Internet, word of mouth and TV its a whole lot to take in, so many views and so many BS. In a historical point of view I try to take in both view/sides and to find "does these views/sides have merit?".

You can not deny that the general feeling of Canadians is that "the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause". A survey done by EKOS  in 2009 (I know surveys can be bias or mis-represent, but give it the benefit of the doubt for this argument) about 70% either did not believe in the mission or against the mission from the beginning. This data shows something is wrong with the connection between the perception of what the government is saying or doing to what ordinary Canadians are hearing and reading. With the detainee problem its another nail in the coffin.

When the Afghan detainee problem came up I did not really believe it. I am sure we all remember the Somali incident; I don't have to repeat that story. When the current detainee problem came up I was kind of shocked because I know from articles that I had read that the Canadian Forces really (or try some may say) implemented reforms in the code of conduct for soldiers on the battlefield. I remember someone said "education is key in prevention" I was solid in my belief that the CF  have risen above that and move onwards for the better. So when this detainee problem came up I want to hear the raw "data"  from people who was there a primary source, not some reporter who just want a story so he or she can sell for money, who got it through questionable source(s) sitting in some air conditioned cubical. For me a simple yes or no will do and if you don't want to give me a story or reason to why yes or no its ok. I just want to be assured that the CF is a professional, accountable and lethal force. Another reason why I want to know is maybe a little personal but I have grown up with this war; I remember in grade 7 when the planes hit the twin towers, the official reason given by the prime-minister (you know NATO Ariticle 5, etc...) and now I am in a post secondary education institution. Its been that long for me it is important, in my short existence on this earth (about two decades) this war was the largest event of all time that changed the world on the scale similar to WWII or the end of the Cold War.

I'm sorry if I went off topic and ramble off to someplace stupid.               

ps: To be honest I haven't read all the post on this thread because simply it is too damn long and I just don't have the time to spare.

:yellow:

 

[burnaby]

There are security regulations, honoured, I fear, most often in the breach, that define what is to be classified at certain levels and why. Potential embarrassment to the minister is not now, never was and never shall be, world without end, amen, an acceptable reason to classify anything. Stupid orders, questions and comments by the high and mighty are, properly, the public's business unless the subject of the order, question or comment is, legitimately, classified.

Parliament's rights and its duties are poorly defined - as they should be. Parliament is sovereign in its own place; there can be no question about that and it must be able to compel ministers to to give them any information they (the ministers) have "in that place," but it is not clear, to me anyway, that Parliament can compel ministers to bring information, normally resident in and the proper business of their departments, to parliament for review.

By convention, which is a much, much more powerful force than anything in any written document, including the Constitution itself, advice to cabinet by officials is absolutely sacrosanct; it cannot be shared with anyone except the ministry of the day, for 30 years.

It can, likely will be argued, that the information sought by parliament is, properly, the property of the government (the Queen's Privy Council, which is also sovereign) and the "Queen on the Bench" (our courts, including the Supremes) cannot allow the "Queen in Parliament" (Parliament itself) to compel the "Queen in Council" (the government) to break the law. Further, it can be argued (but I suspect no one wants to go there lest we make a mockery of the principle of public access), that many, even most classified government documents can be seen as extensions of the documents which are already, conventionally, 'protected' from any scrutiny because they constitute advice to cabinet.

good answer very thoughtful and thanks. I saw the live feed this week given by the justice minister. Lets just say it was long very long and lists a bunch examples of other governments similar to our past actions. I may not understand all of it but what you said ties into what the minister said.

 

[George Wallace]

Well sorry I'm not trying to step on anyone toes but as a student studying history and political science and as a civilian it is frustrating to wake up in the morning and read an article that accuse our troops of deliberately and knowingly had a hand in torture. I support our troops ("soldiers carry out policy; while politicians make policy") all the way; I believe (maybe I'm too idealistic for the real world) in what our troops are doing for a good cause ( or abstract/achievable goal). From what I can read and hear, from books, articles, Internet, word of mouth and TV its a whole lot to take in, so many views and so many BS. In a historical point of view I try to take in both view/sides and to find "does these views/sides have merit?".

OK.  Reading this and the rest of your post, I come to the conclusion that English is your second language.  That or our Education System has let us all down.

You can not deny that the general feeling of Canadians is that "the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause". A survey done by EKOS  in 2009 (I know surveys can be bias or mis-represent, but give it the benefit of the doubt for this argument) about 70% either did not believe in the mission or against the mission from the beginning. This data shows something is wrong with the connection between the perception of what the government is saying or doing to what ordinary Canadians are hearing and reading. With the detainee problem its another nail in the coffin.

With some more time and reading, your perception of what the majority of this site think of Polls and Pollsters.

When the Afghan detainee problem came up I did not really believe it. I am sure we all remember the Somali incident; I don't have to repeat that story. When the current detainee problem came up I was kind of shocked because I know from articles that I had read that the Canadian Forces really (or try some may say) implemented reforms in the code of conduct for soldiers on the battlefield. I remember someone said "education is key in prevention"

You may want to read some on "Rules of Engagement" (ROEs), Laws of Armed Conflict, the Geneva Conventions, etc. and you will see what "Professional Soldiers" must follow in time of conflict. 

I was solid in my belief that the CF  have risen above that and move onwards for the better. So when this detainee problem came up I want to hear the raw "data"  from people who was there a primary source, not some reporter who just want a story so he or she can sell for money, who got it through questionable source(s) sitting in some air conditioned cubical.

Are you so naive that you don't think that the media is not out to sell their stories for profit?

For me a simple yes or no will do and if you don't want to give me a story or reason to why yes or no its ok. I just want to be assured that the CF is a professional, accountable and lethal force. Another reason why I want to know is maybe a little personal but I have grown up with this war; I remember in grade 7 when the planes hit the twin towers, the official reason given by the prime-minister (you know NATO Ariticle 5, etc...) and now I am in a post secondary education institution. Its been that long for me it is important, in my short existence on this earth (about two decades) this war was the largest event of all time that changed the world on the scale similar to WWII or the end of the Cold War.

If you are indeed a student of History and Political Science, these are subjects you should have relative knowledge about.  Unless you only listen and absorb skewed propaganda from some Left Wing or Anarchist sources, you should be looking at information with an unbiased view to get a better idea of what is going on.

               

ps: To be honest I haven't read all the post on this thread because simply it is too damn long and I just don't have the time to spare.

Therein lies the crux of your problem.  Read all the facts/info posted and you will have a better idea of what is going on and not have so many redundant questions.  Being too lazy to do your research will not get you the correct answers.

 

[leroi]

From super-sleuther, Mark, at The Torch.

Thanks Mark and team for the latest scoop.

Afghan Detainee Docs: Crown Privilege Rules

April 3, 2010

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to leroi, the exact URL:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afghan-detainee-docs-crown-privilege.html

Start:

On March 31st Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson presented, in lengthy, well-reasoned and well-documented, remarks the government's case in the Commons for its right, indeed duty, not to produce all documents as demanded in a House motion. Our major media outlets, shamefully, disgracefully, typically, totally failed to report the minister's action. The one exception I can find, the Globe and Mail, almost completely ignored the substance of the minister's case. Truly an awful performance all around. Politics and government are more than games; but one would be hard pressed to know that if one relied on those media (congratulations to David Akin of Canwest News for putting the remarks up at his blog)...

Also, from BruceR. at Flit:

And now, reporting from the other side of the fence...
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_04_01.html#006697

Cory Anderson, foreign affairs advisor at the Kandahar PRT, in the Globe yesterday:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-brass-refused-to-help-detainee-monitoring-diplomat-says/article1519094/

"'The Canadian Forces enjoy an intimate and comprehensive relationship with the National Directorate of Security on a daily basis related to all aspects of military operations and intelligence gathering, but refuse to wade into the one facet of that relationship where adherence to our international obligations is most at risk.'

The diplomat decried “endemic and systemic duplicity within the NDS, especially at the provincial level, that exists to this day, and renders it virtually impossible to have an open and transparent relationship with their officials on the ground in Kandahar.'"

Always interesting to see the grass from the other side of the fence isn't it? Mr. Anderson's assessment of the NDS itself would not be too far from my analysis of the NDS officials I've met, but his assessment of our military relationship with the NDS is wildly at variance with the reality I observed, or any of my own encounters with NDS officials...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

....here it is here - message from the CDS:

Recent public comments have made grave accusations against the men and women of the Canadian Forces.  As Chief of the Defence Staff, I can assure all Canadians that we take all allegations seriously and will investigate new allegations appropriately.

The Canadian Forces have always been and remain committed to ensuring that detainees are handled and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law. Whenever there have been specific allegations of ill treatment, the Canadian Forces have not hesitated to act.

The Canadian Forces hold themselves to the highest level of professional conduct and have conducted themselves with bravery and compassion.  We are committed to ensuring detainees are handled and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law.

The Canadian Forces operate on facts, not innuendo.  Senior military officers have commented honestly, publicly and – perhaps most importantly – on the record – about their knowledge of the issues and the actions they took on the ground.

Canadian Forces members have testified before different Canadian bodies in the past – and will testify in the future as required – to the evolution of the Afghan detainee file as well as the specific actions taken to improve and reinforce our arrangements. It is through these formalized processes that a complete picture of the detainee issue can be ascertained: not through viewing a specific document or e-mail in isolation.

The men and women of uniform are in harm’s way in Afghanistan.  Therefore, there is a fundamental obligation to safeguard operationally sensitive information, as its release - either through witness testimony or documentation - could jeopardize the lives of our men and women serving in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Forces, as part of the whole of government team continue to work with our Afghan partners to improve security, governance and development, and does so while upholding the values of justice, respect for human rights, the rule of law and the dignity of the individual. Those values are reflected in our conduct toward detainees, and in our continuing work to assist our Afghan partners in developing their own institutions.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two posts at The Torch:

1) Babbling Brooks:

Second verse, same as the first
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/second-verse-same-as-first.html

2) Mine:

Afghan detainees: The Globe and Mail's curious failure to mention Attaran at one's side
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afghan-detainees-globe-and-mails.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PMedMoe]

Afghan shooting claims 'drive-by smears': MacKay

Former translator for Canadian Forces tells CBC he can lead government to evidence, witnesses

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is dismissing an Afghan translator's allegations that the Canadian military tried to cover up the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old Afghan civilian in October 2007 as unsubstantiated "drive-by smears."

Ahmadshah Malgarai alleged to MPs in Ottawa on Wednesday that the military "panicked" and rounded up half a dozen Afghans between the age of 10 and 90 in a village north of Kandahar after the shooting of a young man sleeping on the roof of a compound.

But in response to opposition calls for a public inquiry, MacKay insisted Thursday the Canadian Forces investigates all substantiated allegations of abuse.

"Our troops certainly deserve better than drive-by smears and unsubstantiated allegations," the minister told the House during question period.

In an exclusive interview with the CBC's Evan Solomon on Thursday, Malgarai said he could back up his claims and lead MacKay and the government to the witnesses of the alleged incident and name the family of the young man killed.

"If he wants me to prove it, give me access to the information and I'll lead them to it," Malgarai said. "Or issue a visa, I'll bring the witness."

Malgarai also claimed Canadian officials were well aware that detainees transferred into the custody of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) were tortured, calling it "interrogation, Afghan-style" and "subcontracting torture." He told the committee any statement to the contrary by military and political leaders is "a lie."

Malgarai, a Canadian citizen born in Afghanistan, said the soldier who allegedly shot the man in the back of the head mistakenly thought he had a pistol.

But Malgarai, who served as adviser to the former Joint Task Force commander in Afghanistan from June 2007 to June 2008, admitted to MPs on the committee that he did not witness the alleged shooting, but said he was present for the interrogation of the detained men afterward. In his testimony, he also named military officials involved in the investigation and said one of the soldiers called the shooting "murder."

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae seized upon Malgarai's allegations during Thursday's question period to repeat the opposition's calls for the government to call a full public inquiry.

"There is no other place for these allegations to go," Rae told the House.

MacKay replied that Malgarai himself admitted he did not witness the alleged shooting and had no specific evidence to back up his allegations.

"When specific allegations are brought forward, we have forums, we have investigations, and we have the ability to look into them, but in yesterday's testimony there was no specific evidence offered, by his own admission," MacKay said.

More at link

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you're interested in the word-for-word from the House yesterday, here's Rae/Dosanjh-vs-MacKay
http://is.gd/bvCUE
Taliban Jack-vs-MacKay
http://is.gd/bvCWa
and the Bloquistes-vs-MacKay/Nicholson
http://is.gd/bvCYS

 

[MarkOttawa]

From BruceR. at Flit:

On the latest allegations
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_04_16.html#006704

[quoteNo point in ignoring it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/military-vows-to-probe-grave-detainee-accusations/article1534345/

The current story does highlight the importance to our operations of those few Afghan-Canadians who work as LCAs (language and cultural advisors) [e.g. Mr Malgarai]. Because you had to be a Canadian to get a security clearance, and you had to have a security clearance to be allowed into Canadian military facilities overseas, our commanders and the like couldn't do what my group did and hire local interpreters, and often had to rely on a very small group of expatriates with the freedom from other gainful employment or obligations here in Canada. All the LCAs I worked with were nice guys, don't get me wrong. I wish we could have used them more to help with our desperate need for written translation. But among the ANA, where I worked, local guys had their advantages, too...

That said, anything any LCA says about his own experience would likely be unimpeachable by me and most other Canadians on tour. As the task force commander's "terp," he would have been literally by his side whenever he left KAF. LCAs, having the run of KAF, heard as much gossip as any soldier did. And he would have understood more about a passing encounter with an Afghan civilian or an NDS member than he ever could have explained to his Canadian colleagues...

...It's notable to me how the witness' prepared statement ("The military used the NDS as subcontractors for abuse and torture") and his extemporaneous remarks ("I don’t call nobody a liar") differ in tone, indicating some extensive preparation, possibly with his interlocutor, Prof. Attaran, who himself has a long  history  of making allegations later found to be unsupported about the Canadian Forces [emphasis added]...
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_07_22.html#006228

I would advise remaining highly skeptical that the NDS were requested by or provided Canadians with any substantive reports derived from questioning these or any other individuals, either those few Canadian detainees (on which I had no visibility at all), but also the much larger number of "Afghan" detainees -- meaning those taken with ANA or ANP present at the point of capture (by late 2008, that was pretty much all of them) -- that I would have been involved with. I certainly never saw any such reports. Ever.

The NDS officers I encountered during my tour were astonishingly and famously reticent, and entirely uninterested in our queries or counsel regarding "their" detainees, and they didn't often share anything they knew of value with their own army, let alone ISAF forces. As far as we and the other Afghan security forces were concerned, the transfer of a detainee from the ANA or ANP to the NDS ended all possibility of further information from them, or influence on their disposition (positive or negative) for that matter. It certainly didn't stimulate it. And to be fair neither the Afghan soldiers nor we tended to push that issue, as I often complained about at the time. But "outsourcing" or "subcontracting" anything to those men with the expectation of getting any kind of a straight answer back would simply have seemed ludicrous to us.[/quote]

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan: Somalia revisited?  The Globe and Mail chose not to publish this letter taking on the fact-challenged St. Rick Salutin:

Rick Salutin writes about the Canadian mission in Somalia (Afghanistan: Who are the heroes here? April 16)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/afghanistan-who-are-the-heroes-here/article1536027/
that "Canada went there to back up a U.S. invasion, designed to show American ability to impose its control anywhere, as the world’s “sole superpower,” after the Soviet Union imploded." Stuff and anti-American nonsense.

Mr Salutin just cannot let facts intrude on his ideological bias. The U.S. operation in Somalia supplemented a UN mission already in place; the operation was undertaken with the unanimous authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. acted not to demonstrate its unchallengeable power but rather to deal with the prospect of mass starvation in Somalia.

What more could Mr Salutin ask to justify the legitimacy of the American military action? And Canadian involvement (already long in planning before the US decision to intervene)? Were not such action and involvement the essence of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that so many Canadians support? And perhaps at the same time a cautionary example about how difficult humanitarian intervention can turn out to be?

References:
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/docs/scres794.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1584/is_n49_v3/ai_13307722/
http://www.forces.gc.ca/somalia/vol3/v3c24be.htm

Mark
Ottawa