Despite promises to hand over unredacted documents, the Reformers are still stalling, once again skipping an important committee meeting.
As a result the opposition could hold up the funds needed to pay for Harper's Vegas style extravaganza. Let's hope they stick to their guns.
The opposition parties could hold up the millions in federal cash needed to pay for the G8 and G20 summits and a whack of other programs if the Conservative government does not bend on the release of classified documents about the Afghan mission. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois said Friday they are losing hope that the four federal parties will come to an agreement on releasing records related to the transfer of Afghan detainees by the Canadian Forces.
Without a deal, those two parties are prepared to forge ahead Monday or Tuesday with a process that could tie up the House of Commons and all its work until it rises for the summer. It is unclear how far the Liberals are willing to go. "All three of the opposition parties are quite frustrated with the government. For the last two weeks at least we don't see that there's been any significant change," NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said in an interview.
The problem for the government is that once such a motion is in play, nothing other than question period can take place in the Commons. Debate on the motion can go on indefinitely, with no possibility of limiting the time. That could hold up an important vote on government's main estimates, money that goes toward paying important budgetary items including the G8 and G20.
Did Canadian troops use Afghanistan’s notorious security services as “subcontractors for abuse and torture?” That’s what the Commons committee on Afghanistan heard this week from Ahmadshah Malgarai, an Afghan-Canadian who worked as an interpreter in Kandahar.
It is the most damaging allegation yet in the Afghan detainee saga, and it challenges Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s repeated assurances that “the Canadian Forces ... have always acted responsibly.”
The military watchdog probing Canada’s record on Afghan detainees says Ottawa has been withholding documents that go to the heart of its inquiry.
The Military Police Complaints Commission says the federal government’s refusal to release key letters written by Canadian Forces commanders raises troubling concerns about Ottawa’s approach to divulging information in this matter.
This is not going to go away no matter how much Harper hopes it will.
It's interesting the information that turns up on the CAPP live feed.
This posting was from last October, just before the detainee issue hit the fan.
But former commander, General Rick Hillier, reveals a few things about Stephen Harper, that would certainly dispute his claims that he didn't know that the prisoners, being handed over by our troops, were being tortured.
He also states that it was Harper 's personal decision to move our soldiers into dangerous zones and that his actions put our soldiers "at more danger of being killed by roadside bombs."
CANADA - Canada's former top general who retired in 2008 after serving Canada in Afghanistan has written an autobiography and its shining a light on corruption and mismanagement within Stephen Harper's office. Hillier has had a distinguished military career.
He also discovered Stephen Harper liked to meddle in military affairs...
1. Like trying to prevent the flag-draped coffins of soldiers from being seen when they are brought back to Canadian soil and the military eremonies associated with that. Harper wanted those images censored. This was apparently Hillier's "line in the sand" because it meant Harper had no respect for fallen soldiers.
"Look, don't bring the Airbus in, or if you bring the plane in, turn it away from the cameras so that people can't see the bodies coming off, or do it after dark, or do it down behind the hangars, or just bar everybody from it," Hillier quotes the PMO staffers as saying. "They clearly didn't want that picture of the flag-draped coffin on the news."It is Canadian military policy that every Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan will be honoured as a war hero. Harper's disrespect for soldiers was the last straw for Hillier and prompted his early retirement at the age of 53.
3. That Stephen Harper knew about torture allegations but chose to simply ignore them because he was too worried about bad press and his image.
4. It was Stephen Harper's decision to move Canadian troops from Kabul and reposition them in southern Kandahar province, where they are now at much more danger of being killed by roadside bombs. "It had already been largely decided that the Canadian presence in Afghanistan was shifting to the southern half of the country," Hillier writes.
5. Hillier also has tough criticism for NATO, saying the military alliance is rife with political posturing and corruption, including Canadians from the Prime Minister's staff who are more worried about making a name for themselves and schmoozing than actually fighting/winning the war.
6. Hillier also said it was "embarrassing" that Canada has to beg for equipment from other countries because Harper's approach to the war is all for show and he isn't willing to spend anything on equipment that will save the lives of Canadian soldiers.The book "A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats and the Politics of War" is scheduled to be released next week.
I am getting so tired of the double standards in this so-called war on terror. It's insane. If you want Canada to engage in this conflict with honour, we can't allow ourselves to act dishonourably.
Senator Romeo Dallaire tried to explain that to Jason Kenney, but he's too thick to understand. Obviously programmed by John Hagee and Charles Mcvety, his eyes glaze over with any mention of human rights or common decency.
But if you think torture and abuse ended with the exposure of the Harper government's possible complicity, guess again. Acclaimed journalist Andrew Wander, paints a different picture, and not one any of us can be proud of. This is what happens when you hold the Bully's Coat.
But before anyone calls him a 'Taliban Dupe', he is a highly respected journalist, something rare these days; and has written articles for The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Observer and The Sunday Telegraph.
And yet Arthur Kent, Conservative MP Peter Kents' younger, smarter brother; has tried many times to sound the alarm. And again, Arthur Kent is a highly respected journalist who once worked for NBC. He quit because he was tired of them watering down his stories, and instead freelances, where he can report the truth.
Governments around the world, including those of Arab and European states, have colluded in the secret detention of terrorism suspects, UN investigators have reported.
An extensive report, released on Wednesday, paints a disturbing picture of a systematic secret detention programme involving many countries. Officials found that secret detention "may even amount to a crime against humanity" ...
A new report has shown that Peter MacKay lied about when he learned of the torture of Afghan detainees. In fact this also involved both Stockwell Day, who I mentioned before, and Gordon O'Connor.
His story keeps changing, but so far not one single truth has been told.
OTTAWA–Three federal cabinet ministers and a senior government official met the head of the International Red Cross in the fall of 2006 as the humanitarian organization tried to focus Canada's attention on alleged abuses in Afghan prisons, The Canadian Press has learned. Precisely what Jakob Kellenberger told Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor, Stockwell Day and Robert Greenhill, then the president of the Canadian International Development Agency, in the Sept. 26, 2006 meetings is blanketed by diplomatic secrecy.
McKay was then Foreign Affairs minister, O'Connor was at Defence and Day was Public Safety minister overseeing Corrections Canada officers in Kandahar.
While the details of the meeting are secret, enough was said about Afghanistan to generate a report from MacKay's office a month later which flagged the Red Cross president's concerns.
The contents of the report, one of thousands of documents filed in the Military Police Complaints Commission investigation of torture allegations, are censored.
The email was titled: "Re: meeting with ICRC president re detention issues."
The Conservative government has insisted it never received direct warnings about possible Afghan torture of Canadian-transferred prisoners, although MacKay has conceded that general concerns were heard almost from the moment the government took office in early 2006.
The fact the Red Cross meetings took place raises further questions about what the federal government knew and the kind of warnings they received in those critical early months.
Officially, the Red Cross would only say the talks focused on topics including Afghanistan, humanitarian law in modern conflicts and co-operation with Canada.
Unofficially, sources in Geneva said the international agency, whose functions include monitoring the treatment of prisoners, was growing frustrated over Canada's tardy notification of its handover of captured suspected Taliban to Afghan authorities.
The delay could often be as much as 34 days, making it difficult to track the detainees.
A spokesman for MacKay referred questions to the foreign affairs department, which declined to comment.
"Recognizing the confidential nature of the relationship between the ICRC and the (government of Canada), we are not in a position to comment on any meetings between the two parties," Katherine Heath-Eves wrote in an email on Saturday.
Liberal critic Bob Rae said these revelations speak again to the government's credibility. "It confirms that the ministers involved were front and centre and their continuing denials that they were unaware of any issues becomes less and less credible," he said.
He said the government has to come out with uncensored documents, to clear the air.
"Everybody's arguing in the dark right now."
The Red Cross is bound by international convention not to discuss with other countries what it saw in Afghan prisons. But it could drop broad hints, as officials did at two meetings with Canadian military and civilian officials in Kandahar in May and June 2006.
During those meetings, which took place a year before the federal government acted to protect detainees, officials issued veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails.
There were at least two other meetings between Red Cross officials – one in Ottawa, the other in Geneva – to discuss Afghan prisoners.
Diplomat-whistleblower Richard Colvin was also sounding an alarm at the time, although the government has dismissed his reports as vague and based on hearsay.
But the meeting in Ottawa at the end of September would – at the very least – have focused the attention of government ministers on the issue of prisoners, if not the actual jail conditions.
It is evident that what was said caught the attention of government officials because it generated not only the followup report from MacKay's office, but in a November 2006 meeting with the Red Cross there was a clear change in messaging. Uncensored talking points viewed on a confidential basis by The Canadian Press say the humanitarian agency was told that Canada was ``reflecting on how to engage more pro-actively" with the Afghans over prisoners.
The consideration included "asking the government of Afghanistan for permission to visit the prisons" and to discuss the entire process of handling detainees, said the Nov. 20, 2006 document.
The suggestion of an ad-hoc monitoring regime was at the time welcome news to the Red Cross, which had 2005 and 2006 delivered a handful of diplomatic notes to the Canadian embassy in Kabul related to prisoner concerns.
Instead of following up on the promise made to the Red Cross, federal officials continued to resist establishing a monitoring regime. It was only on May 3, 2007 that Ottawa signed a new deal with the Afghan government, giving Canadians the right to check on the prisoners they captured.
The county's former top man on the Afghan file conceded in testimony before a House of Commons committee that officials were aware of the abuse allegations, but made a distinction between Canadian-captured prisoners and others in the system.
"The fact that there were allegations of mistreatment in Afghan prisons was known to us," said David Mulroney, who led the Privy Council's Afghanistan task force. "There was no mention specifically of Canadian-transferred prisoners – that was a deficiency that we later cleared up."
He also acknowledged there was no way to get credible evidence about abuse of Canadian transferees because there was no proper monitoring of prisoners prior to 2007.
There was a call for Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s head in Question Period today – the first demand for his resignation from the opposition since allegations of torture and abuse of Afghan detainees blew up on the Conservative government. There were more calls for a public inquiry and one profanity was uttered – “bullshit” mouthed Laurie Hawn, the parliamentary secretary to the Defence Minister – as the Bloc asked more questions about the alleged torture of prisoners transferred by Canadian soldiers.
It is clear this story is not going away.
“The minister has on nine separate occasions told the House there is not a scintilla of evidence of mistreatment event as the entire country was shown evidence that torture did take place,” NDP defence critic Jack Harris charged. “Canadians no longer have confidence in this minister. … will he resign?”
Mr. MacKay ignored the call. Rather, he defended himself saying, “I have been clear, I have been consistent.”
The minister noted that several senior officials as well as three senior military officers, including former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier, have all testified before the special parliamentary committee examining the allegations. Their evidence has been consistent with that of the government.
“The honourable member cannot accept the evidence of those who have testified before the committee who have rejected the one lone witness,” Mr. MacKay said, referring to senior Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin whose explosive testimony has reignited this story. Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh was equally tough on Mr. MacKay, saying he has “confidence in the military but I have no confidence in that minister right now.”
“The Conservatives refuse to tell the truth on detainees,” he said. “They censor documents. They intimidate public servants.”
Mr. Dosanjh demanded a public inquiry.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff stands in the House of Commons during Question on Tuesday, December 8, 2009.
Mr. MacKay again repeated that he and the government have been consistent in taking the advice of military officials, who are on the ground in Afghanistan.
“If we are acting on the evidence of a number of witnesses, from senior diplomats, senior military, acting on their advice, acting responsibly he cannot condemn what the government has done,” Mr. MacKay said.
Meanwhile, for the second consecutive day a front-page story in the Globe and Mail inspired more questions about the detainee issue.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff led off Question Period framing his question around the newspaper’s report that 23 former Canadian ambassadors have criticized the government’s attacks on Mr. Colvin. He charged the government is not listening to its diplomats nor is it listening to Canadian soldiers who report “credible accounts of detainee abuse … and for a year, the government does nothing about [it].”
“Why will the government not account for that year in which it did nothing?’’ Mr. Ignatieff demanded.
He was also referring to a report in yesterday’s Globe and Mail in which reporter Paul Koring wrote that sworn testimony by senior Canadian officers and uncensored documents contradict Mr. MacKay’s assertions that no Canadian-transferred detainee was abused. Transport Minister John Baird answered that Canadian military take action when they are presented with “credible information.”
“In the circumstances which the leader of the opposition described, it was not even a Canadian detainee, but they still did the right thing, they still acted,” he said.
As for Laurie Hawn and his profanity – he apologized, sort of:
“Mr. Speaker, the words were not spoken. The words were mouthed. I applaud the leader of the Bloc’s ability to lip-read in English. That is very commendable. I do apologize for mouthing inappropriate comments. The next time I will mouth something more appropriate like bovine scatology. Since the honourable member is so good at lip-reading, I assume he can read minds, so I would like to apologize for what I am thinking right now.”
Peter MacKay’s very bad day. The Defence Minister will be grilled later today when he testifies before the special parliamentary committee on Afghanistan. Mr. MacKay is appearing with former defence minister Gordon O’Connor, with Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon also expected to face MPs. Mr. MacKay, however, is the big target of the opposition. Here is a preview of the line of questioning from the New Democrats: “We want to find out why the minister accused Mr. Colvin [the senior Canadian diplomat whose explosive evidence about detainee torture has reignited this story] of being a Taliban dupe,” NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar says. “Why did the government ignore the concerns of the Red Cross and why did Mr. MacKay contradict himself about seeing Mr. Colvin’s reports?” The NDP has been very strong on this file of late. In fact, yesterday NDP defence critic Jack Harris publicly called for Mr. MacKay’s resignation. This, as a result of the rallying of support around Mr. Colvin by former Canadian ambassadors. Also, a report in The Globe and Mail earlier this week noted that sworn testimony by senior Canadian officers and uncensored documents contradict Mr. MacKay’s assertions that no Canadian-transferred detainee was abused. All of these reports, and the rocky history of the detainee file, have combined to increase the pressure on the Defence Minister. How is holding up? “He is a trooper and fighting his way through,” says a Tory strategist and friend of Mr. MacKay. “No sounds of discontent at this point (from his boss and his boss’s people) though I am sure he will be glad when the Christmas break comes this week."
Meanwhile, the Tory strategist says there have been the usual rumours of a cabinet shuffle but they began even before Mr. Colvin’s testimony. Interestingly, one of the more interesting rumours doesn’t involve Mr. MacKay at all. Rather, it concerns Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner, whose private member’s bill to scrap the gun registry, has been successful. She may be in line for a promotion.
I remember several years ago in the midst of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, a young Afghan boy had arrived in Kingston for surgery. Coverage in our local paper went on for days, tracking the little guy's recovery. He became the face of that war for us.
The above video is part IV of the documentary 'Rethink Afghanistan' and deals with the devastating affects of this war. Let's not kid ourselves. This is a war and innocent civilians are being killed. And now that we could be facing war crimes, it's time to get out.
OTTAWA – Federal officials assured the Red Cross in 2006 that Canada would take an active role in monitoring the fate of Afghan prisoners – but for critical months behind the scenes did little more than manage the political spin, secret memos show.
The records, examined on a confidential basis by The Canadian Press, show the Harper government placed a greater emphasis on drafting "key messages" to the public and preparing "approaches" for embarrassing disclosures than on dealing with the human rights of prisoners.
Throughout 2006, when Canada took on its combat role in Kandahar, the International Red Cross pressed Ottawa to take more responsibility for prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers.
At the time, federal officials were receiving warnings about torture in Afghan prisoners from Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin. The Red Cross also met directly with a military lawyer, an RCMP officer, as well as another foreign affairs staffer in Kandahar.
And on Nov. 20, 2006, Foreign Affairs officials drafted talking points meant to assure officials of the humanitarian agency.
"Canada is reflecting on how to engage more pro-actively with Afghan and international authorities on the issue of treatment of detainees, including asking the Government of Afghanistan for permission to visit the prisons, discussing with Afghan authorities the process and procedures for handling and treating detainees from transfer to arrival at final detention facility, and talking to the (Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission)," say the talking points.
The document also warned officials to prepare "an interdepartmental approach" for dealing with "the potential scenario where allegations of mistreatment or torture are substantiated."
A prisoner-transfer agreement between Ottawa and the Afghan government in December 2005 (signed by Rick Hillier in the middle of an election campaign) did not allow Canada the automatic right to check on the welfare of those the army had captured.
That Canada was considering even an ad-hoc monitoring regime would have been welcome news to the Red Cross.
Despite those assurances, officials in Ottawa placed the notion of formally monitoring prisoners at the bottom of a "Strategic (Macro) Level Engagement" plan produced near the end of February 2007.
No. 1 on the eight-point plan for officials was to "Prepare standard key messages (ie. importance of adhering to obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law regarding the treatment of detainees.)"
Point No. 8 in the plan was to "consider supplementing the existing arrangement" in such a way to include the "guarantee of access for Canadian authorities to individuals transferred by the (Canadian Forces)."
In March 2007, the federal government did ask the Afghan human-rights commission to check on the welfare of prisoners, but the chronically underfunded agency had trouble getting into detention centres.
The Harper government eventually decided on full-blown Canadian monitoring, but only after being rocked by published allegations that prisoners handed over to Afghan intelligence may have been abused.
Federal officials have since acknowledged in testimony before a House of Commons committee that Canada has no idea whether prisoners were tortured during the 2006-07 time frame because monitoring didn't take place.
A respected former diplomat was aghast that "developing the spin" would take priority over dealing with an issue as urgent as possible torture.
"This is one of those situations where – once again – presentation has taken the place of substance," said Louis Delvoie, Canada's former high commissioner to Pakistan.
"It's a rather sad commentary on what is taking place. You (should) deal with the substance of an issue and then you develop the communications plan as a separate and subsequent item to explain how you're doing it and what you're doing."
He said this is not the kind of conduct Canadians should expect from their government in wartime.
Errol Mendes, a human-rights law expert, said the paper trail demonstrates that the Harper government viewed the war as a political exercise, where image-branding trumped policy.
"Throughout all of this the military has been used as a political prop and that is dangerous," he said.
"Governments come and go but the military as an institution remains and the damage this kind of approach can leave is severe."
The paper trail shows Canadians were presented in the fall of 2006 with an alternative to handing over prisoners to an uncertain fate in the hands of the Afghans.
Other NATO allies were clamouring to set up a prisoner camp adjacent to Kandahar Airfield.
As the winter of 2006-07 settled in, Canadian officials began to hear abuse concerns from more than just the Red Cross.
British and Dutch forces, who followed the Canadians into southern Afghanistan, were "deeply frustrated" even though their agreements with Kabul allowed them more access to prisoners.
"UK/Dutch pol/mil colleagues lament that they are unable to track their detainees," said a Dec. 4, 2006, memo viewed by The Canadian Press.
"It is unclear whether they are tortured, held beyond legal limits, or (all too frequently) released back to battlefield."
The Allies were worried "the detainee issue could explode at any moment into a political firestorm."
The notion of setting up a NATO-run prison camp was sounded rejected by Canada, partly on the advice of Colvin, defence sources said.
At the time, officials were putting a lot of stock into the idea that the Afghan government would take the handling of detainees away from the National Directorate of Security and hand prisoners over to a special camp run by the army.
But Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak eventually sank the proposal.
Given recent allegation of complicity in war crimes, and our government's horrendous campaign to cover up what they knew, Stephen Harper can no longer attack China on human rights.
He was not greeted with a warm reception when he arrived in that country and despite the air brushed photo-ops, there was a clear message here. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
BEIJING–With words at once blunt and pointed, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper Thursday, admonishing him for not visiting China earlier during his time as Canadian leader.
Harper sat stone-faced during the rebuke – the words clearly stung.
They came at the beginning of a late afternoon meeting, just before Canadian and international media were ushered out of the room in Beijing's Great Hall of the People.
"This is your first visit to China and this is the first meeting between the Chinese Premier and the Canadian Prime Minister in almost five years," Wen told Harper inside the Great Hall.
"Five years is too long a time," Wen scolded, adding that it was understandable that there had been "comments in the media that your visit is one that should have taken place earlier."
The rebuke – rare in relations between two nations – came just a day after the Chinese media had given Harper a cool-to-cold reception, criticizing him on a wide range of issues.
Later during a press conference Harper attempted to dismiss the scolding from the Chinese Premier – and actually spin it into a point of agreement. "My view is the same," he said. "I would like to see Chinese come to Canada more frequently."
But the words rang hollow.
It was, after all, Harper who chose to chill the relationship, with his aides, in the early going of his tenure as Prime Minister, suggesting that he had a very busy schedule that left little time for visiting the Chinese.
Members of his cabinet, China watchers know, had more than once portrayed China as a Godless, totalitarian state with nuclear weapons pointed towards North America.
Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae told the Star in a telephone interview from Ottawa Thursday that the rebuke was clearly "deliberate" and meant to convey China's feelings of being "deeply insulted" by Harper's "disdain."
He called Harper's handling of the Canada-China file, "a colossal mistake," adding that he hopes the Prime Minister learns some "humility" from the encounter.
"You simply cannot ignore the fastest growing economy in the world – and one of the most important societies in the world," Rae said.
Premier Wen is known as a strong and capable leader – China's number two – and is by far China's most-loved politician.
When he speaks, he frequently expresses the feelings of the Chinese people.
It was the first time that Wen had met Harper.
Wen said he hoped Harper's visit would "turn a new page," in the bi-lateral relationship.
Only a day earlier Chinese English media had openly criticized Harper on his first day in China, saying that China-Canadian relations had deteriorated on his watch, after having enjoyed sure and steady growth under Liberal governments.
I'm afraid like many Canadians I had become an armchair warrior. I fed into the rhetoric that we were on a noble mission. We were fighting for the people of Afghanistan so that children could go to school and women could be free.
But all of that came crashing down, when I learned that we were in fact engaging in war crimes by being complicit in torture. And discovering that our inaction on this may have put our soldiers at even greater risk, just makes me even angrier.
As a result, I have decided to learn everything I can about this so-called "mission", and the more I learn the more convinced I am that we need to pull out NOW!
The above video is part two in a series by filmmaker Robert Greenwald, entitled Rethink Afghanistan. In it he discusses the situation with Pakistan and what is really going on there.
We hear all too often about how insurgents are crossing at the border, but if you look at the video, there is no border; at least not one recognized by the people living there. And according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; "The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban."
This fits with what Human Rights activist and former Afghan member of parliament, Malalai Joya, has been trying to tell us. Her country will never be stable until the foreign invaders leave.
But what is of utmost importance now is stabilizing Pakistan. The country feels threatened by India and the fact that both have nuclear weapons and there is an apparent arms race between the two nations, is very troubling. However, if Pakistan feels that Afghanistan is also a threat, and that westerners are siding with their enemies, this could be a recipe for disaster.
It also sheds a new light on Harper's recent visit to India. He wouldn't allow reporters to ask him any questions while there, and it created quite a disturbance in the country. But it also worried Pakistan yet again, because he didn't take even a moment to visit that country's leaders, and instead signed a nuclear deal with their enemy.
How will this affect the safety of Canadian soldiers, who already have a bad reputation with the Afghan people? Are we now an even bigger target? And what about here at home? Is our safety assured if Harper continues on this dangerous path?
Another thing that continues to haunt me are our PM's words when speaking to the extreme right 'Civitas Club'. He told them that he couldn't simply rely on the the support of the neo-cons, but must tap into the theo-cons for money and votes. He continued that this might mean putting a little muscle into our foreign policy.
Sadly, the ultimate goal for these people is the annihilation of the middle east so they can feel the rapture. Groups like Christians United for Israel and the Council for National Policy are feeding into the hype, and for Harper he just loves the power. Canadians are on the bottom of his list of priorities.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not take full advantage of his visit to the Indian subcontinent.
With a fruitful visit to India that revolved around nuclear cooperation, discussions of increased trade and awkward Bollywood moments (another in an ongoing effort to brand Harper as anything other than a robot and win the Indo-Canadian vote through planned photo-ops), Harper missed a crucial chance to build links with India's neighbour to the west.
War-ridden Pakistan, a state that has suffered from more terror attacks than any country in the western world, deserved at least some mention and support from Canada.
With both countries embroiled in an unending conflict around Afghanistan, Pakistan's success or failure fighting the Taliban on its side of the border will have direct implications on Canada's war effort. Would it not have been prudent for the government to have spent even a couple of hours in Islamabad to discuss new strategies or build renewed support?
Canada's decision to ignore India's historical rival does not echo smart politics.
It is also notable that Harper paid visits to the world's largest Hindu temple in New Delhi and the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar, yet did not acknowledge India's large Muslim minority - the third largest Muslim contingent in the world.
In a climate where dialogue with Muslim states and Muslims is so important, Harper missed the boat in the Indian subcontinent.
Stephen Harper is currently trying to hide behind our soldiers, as part of a massive cover up of torture allegations and war crimes. But in 2007 we were warned that by condoning torture, we were actually putting our soldiers at greater risk of being killed or tortured themselves.
This is how Stephen Harper supports the troops?
Canada has suffered disporortionate losses in Afghanistan, and it would appear that our government may be in part responsible for that.
Since the Reformers have clearly indicated that their careers are job one, and are erroneously implying that the Opposition parties are attacking our men and women in uniform, it's time we pulled out. We have lost our moral authority and our troops have been abandoned by a government playing politics. This war must end now for us, because ...
OTTAWA – It's "reprehensible" for the Conservative government to label critics unpatriotic for questioning Canada's policy of transferring prisoners to Afghan jailers, Liberal MP Bob Rae said Monday. Rae was reacting to comments from Prime Minister Stephen Harper while onboard a Canadian ship in the Caribbean where he accused critics of undermining military personnel.
"That's beyond the pale," Rae said. "It's reprehensible." Besieged by questions over the government's handling of the detainee issue for a third consecutive week, the Tories mounted a full frontal offensive Monday. They accused their critics of maligning Canada's soldiers – even though no one has done so. That prompted an immediate opposition counter-attack.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff called it a "disinformation campaign" and accused the government of "hiding behind our soldiers. " Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said the Tories are pushing an argument of "astounding simplicity" that is beneath a prime minister. And NDP Leader Jack Layton accused the Conservatives of "trying to change the channel." "This has never been about troops," he said ....
Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you.
That’s your prime minister talking, folks, accusing members of Parliament who raise legitimate questions about Canada’s policy on the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan of smearing “our men and women in uniform.” There is no sense in which this is true. There is no interpretation you can give it that draws it near to the truth. It is not even close ...
Further proof that Stephen Harper is not taking this seriously, and would prefer that our soldiers face criminal charges at the Hague, was in the pure nonsense he spouted today.
In pure George Bush fashion he is a accusing the Opposition of attacking our men and women in uniform, when not one of them did any such thing.
Since he and his party care nothing for us or our soldiers, it's time to bring them home. They are now in more danger than ever because the Afghan people know what has been going on, and we can no longer claim to be there for humanitarian reasons. We have lost our moral authority, so the war is officially over for us.
If the Reformers had nothing to hide they would DEMAND an inquiry. Instead they're trying a cover up and smear campaign. Our troops deserve a leader who stands with them. Stephen Harper proved today that he is not a leader. He is a spineless coward.
PORT OF SPAIN–Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a partisan shot at his opposition critics while touring the HMCS Quebec in Trinidad-Tobago Sunday.
The Canadian ship and navy officers are helping with security for the Commonwealth summit. Harper, in brief comments to the Canadians, was addressing allegations that Canadian civilian and military leaders ignored warnings of a risk of torture in Afghan prisons. "Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you." (If he was standing beside them he would allow an inquiry so they don't have to face a war crimes tribunal)
The Canadian military denies any knowledge of "credible" warnings of torture before May 2007, while top civilian bureaucrat David Mulroney admitted that there many kinds of warnings, but a lack of "hard facts" to act on prior to May 2007 when a new prisoner transfer deal was inked.
In recent days, Harper and his ministers have framed the controversy as an attack on the military by the opposition, as today's comments from the Prime Minister appeared to indicate.
Opposition politicians say that they are in fact standing up for Canadian soldiers in the face of incompetent or unclear handling of torture allegations by the Conservative government
A recent column by Lawrence Martin discusses the Reform Conservatives', incessant need to smear their opponents, without offering anything constructive.
Have you ever listened to Question Period? They rarely answer a question. They simply mock or turn the question around. A classic example of course was Harper's Nixon impersonation, when asked if he was going to fire the finance minister after getting his predictions so wrong. He refused to answer that question but immediately stated that he'd love to fire the opposition leader, but with all the tapes he had on him...
This is not intelligent debate, and does nothing to help Canadians.
We see them do the same thing to Richard Colvin, to Elections Canada, or to anyone who tries to get in their way.
Even Don Newman recently stated that Parliament has gotten uglier since the arrival of the Reform Party. They have no respect for Canadian institutions, and just turn everything into a game.
Mr. Martin is right. Michael Ignatieff has got to start fighting back. What's happening now with the Afghan Detainee scandal, is his area of expertise. He has worked with the UN before on human rights issues, so has firsthand knowledge of how these things work. We need that voice of reason and intelligence. I'm so sick of the Ref-Con nonsense.
If that is done on the question of diplomat Richard Colvin’s testimony on the Afghan detainees, the Harper government’s side of the story doesn’t make it to the dance floor.
In the same week, the Tories were distributing flyers to various ridings trying to paint the Liberals as anti-Jewish. The charge is ludicrous. Michael Ignatieff, one of the most right-wing leaders on foreign policy the Liberals have ever had, is decidedly pro-Israel. But that’s the way the Tories operate.
We recall how they went after Linda Keen, the former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and how they slandered Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, calling her a “national disgrace.” They smeared NDP members as being pro Taliban.
As for their record of secrecy and concealment, they may well exceed any Canadian government before them. They’ve muzzled their own ministers, shut down a giant government information registry, and made a mockery of access to information regulations.
No one should be surprised, therefore, if in fact they tried to cover up the Afghan prisoner abuse and are now forced into trying to discredit the whistleblower.
Iggy’s team had the money. But what did he do? After being belted by Conservative commercials labelling him a just-visiting, power-hungry, carpetbagger, he turned the other cheek. In a series of commercials he stood in front of a forest mouthing platitudes and bromides. Looking on, Stephen Harper was probably laughing his butt off.
The Grits, hovering at historic low levels of 23 per cent in the polls, desperately need a new strategy. They’ve got to throw out the kid gloves and start responding to the Tories in kind.
Ignatieff hasn’t wished to be front and centre on the Afghan allegations because of his past controversial remarks on the use of torture.
But the torture allegations are only one element of this story. There’s a bigger one. It’s the alleged cover-up. Iggy should smear the Conservatives with that. Unlike most Tory charges, it might even be true.
This is a disgrace and Stephen Harper should resign, along with Peter Mackay; and everyone else who knew this was happening but allowed our soldiers to hand prisoners over anyway.
Now those very same soldiers could be facing war crimes themselves, while the Ref-Cons try to wash their hands of the whole sordid affair.
This is how they support the troops?
EU diplomat backs claims on torture Canadian's warnings on Afghan detainees reflected common view, says his European colleague Toronto Star November 21, 2009
Richard Colvin's repeated warnings to the Canadian government about detainee torture in Afghanistan were an expression of the common concerns of like-minded Western nations, not the baseless ramblings of a rogue diplomat, a European colleague says.
Michael Semple, former deputy head of the European Union's mission in Afghanistan when Colvin was second-in-command of the Canadian embassy, said his own records from his time in Kabul are littered with the same findings that the senior Canadian envoy shared with a House of Commons committee this week.
Colvin, now a top intelligence officer at the embassy in Washington, expressed concerns that were "absolutely credible," said Semple, now a research fellow at Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights.
"We all worked on it, and we appropriately compared our notes, in terms of understanding what was happening on torture inside the Afghan intelligence service," he told the Star.
The Canadian government should have heeded Colvin's allegation that detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers to local authorities likely were abused, Semple said.
Colvin told a special Commons committee on Afghanistan Wednesday that Canada took vastly more battlefield prisoners than either the British or Dutch militaries operating in southern Afghanistan.
He said that those detainees were, by and large, innocent taxi drivers and farmers rather than Taliban operatives, and that abuse was the "standard operating procedure" of Afghan authorities, regardless of the intelligence value of a prisoner.
The implements of torture were wire cables, electrical shocks and physical and sexual abuse, he said.
Colvin says his verbal and written warnings, sent far and wide to Canadian diplomats and military officials between May 2006 and October 2007, were at first ignored.
Once newspaper reports in April 2007 brought the problems to light, Colvin said he was instructed to keep quiet by David Mulroney, a senior official who had responsibilities to report on Afghanistan to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, then-foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay and Gordon O'Connor, who was the defence minister before he became the first political casualty of the detainee scandal.
Under Mulroney's tenure, diplomats were told not to put torture allegations on paper, Colvin said.
But a senior government official with knowledge of the file told the Star yesterday there was a simple – and not a nefarious – explanation for Mulroney's instruction.
"Under instructions from Mr. Mulroney, regular phone calls were instituted that connected Ottawa with the field, Kabul with Kandahar, and civilians with military," the source said. "That's why some people were reminded to use the phone instead of simply sitting in an office writing out the same report."
The same source, who answered the Star's question on condition of anonymity, said Colvin's allegations were reviewed by departmental officials, not political officials. The timing of that review was not exactly clear, but the source suggested it was in 2007.
"A complete and thorough review of everything that was alleged was done, and a whole government team set to design a monitoring system still in place now. No detail was hidden, every relevant fact was brought to light."
Mulroney is said to be willing to testify in front of the parliamentary committee, to counter Colvin's allegations, which the Conservative government dismissed as "not credible" and "entirely suspect."
"I don't believe it's backed up by fact, and what we have to deal with in a parliamentary hearing, as we do in a court of law or another judicial or public inquiry, is evidence that can be substantiated," MacKay, who succeeded O'Connor as defence minister, said in Halifax Friday.
"The evidence and the suggestion that every single Taliban prisoner that was taken into custody and turned over (to be tortured) is simply not credible."
Semple said the burden of proof should not be on Colvin to show that every detainee was sent to Afghan torture chambers. He also said Colvin never complained to him about Canadian officials in Ottawa or Afghanistan ignoring his advice from the front lines, nor did he mention, as he did in his testimony, that he was being asked to keep his explosive findings out of written reports to his superiors to avoid a scandalous paper trail.
"My reading of this is that he was discreet and did not discuss internal Canadian affairs with people outside his office," Semple said.
Like the defence department earlier this week, the foreign affairs department urged patience to let the Commons committee's hearings run their course. Department spokesman Jamie Christoff said in an email to reporters that current and former foreign affairs employees will provide testimony in the weeks ahead that "will provide important context and information about this issue."
MacKay has acknowledged it was based on the reports of Colvin and others in 2007 that Canada signed a new transfer agreement with the Afghan government that allowed Canadian officials to visit and interview prisoners.
Opposition parties continued to call on the Tories Friday to investigate Colvin's allegations, and the possibility that Afghan detainees may have been abused in the full knowledge of senior Canadian military and diplomatic and political leaders. That, they say, would violate international law, which prohibits a country from knowingly placing individuals in a situation where they will be tortured.
I've never heard such nonsense in my life as the way that Peter Mackay is trying to spin this story. These are very serious allegations and have been going on for three years now. They keep sweeping it under the rug, but enough is enough.
The Scene. Fewer Conservatives than usual chose to mockingly applaud Bob Rae when he rose to open Question Period this afternoon. Odd that.
“Mr. Speaker, the testimony yesterday of Richard Colvin before the Afghanistan committee showed two clear things,” Mr. Rae began, to groans from the Conservative side at mention of Mr. Colvin’s name.
“First, Mr. Colvin testified that he had information with respect to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghan prisons and that he gave that information to his superiors. Second, Mr. Colvin testified that he was also told by his superiors to shut up, essentially,” Mr. Rae continued. “Given the importance of these two revelations, the revelations of mistreatment, harsh treatment and even torture and the revelation with respect to a cover-up, would the minister not agree with me and with others that there should indeed be a full public inquiry into what has taken place with respect to the transfer of these detainees?”
Across the aisle, Peter MacKay furrowed his brow, thrust his left hand in his pocket and commenced with the first of his 18 attempts to explain.
“Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here a number of times that there has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian Forces. Second, with respect to the evidence yesterday, what we know is that when the evidence is put to the test, it simply does not stand up,” he offered. “Mr. Colvin had an opportunity to speak directly to me and other ministers of the government who were in Afghanistan. He did not raise the issue. As well, what is being relied upon here is nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”
That Mr. Colvin’s credibility would be an issue for Mr. MacKay is perhaps confusing, seeing as how Mr. Colvin remains sufficiently fit, at least in this government’s judgment, to serve as the deputy head of intelligence at this country’s embassy in Washington, DC. Mr. Rae took note of this.
“Instead of tackling the problem,” he said, “the government is attacking Mr. Colvin.”
Mr. MacKay sought to explain. “Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear,” he said. “Nobody is attacking the individual.”
In the next breath, this. “What we are attacking here is the importance of the credibility of information that the Canadian public and a parliamentary inquiry is being asked to accept,” the Defence Minister advised. “I think that even the honourable member, who purports to be a lawyer, does know a little bit of something about due process. This is evidence that is being asked to be accepted without question. It is based on second- and third-hand information and Taliban information.”
It is apparently not, then, that Mr. MacKay thinks Mr. Colvin to be inherently flawed, only that Mr. Colvin is perhaps monetarily struck with profound gullibility and delusion. But not so grievously struck with such afflictions, mind you, that Mr. MacKay’s government so far sees fit to remove him from a seemingly sensitive position in perhaps the most vital foreign embassy this country possesses.
With that clarified, the proceedings moved on with questions from Ujjal Dosanjh and Gilles Duceppe. From across the room, Heritage Minister James Moore appeared to heckle Mr. Dosanjh with the name of “Allan Cutler.” Mr. Cutler is known as a whistleblower who exposed the Liberal government’s so-called Sponsorship Scandal. It is unclear if Mr. Moore meant to imply an analogy.
“When it comes to the prisoners and the treatment of Taliban prisoners, when it comes to their justice system, we have invested over $132 million to improve that system,” Mr. MacKay testified in response to a question from the Bloc leader. “I am very proud of the fact that we have dedicated soldiers, civil servants, individuals who are working closely with the government of Afghanistan, as challenging as that is, to see that we improve its capacity. We will continue to do so. That is the real work that is being done. This is a witch hunt.”
Fair enough. This government, for instance, has committed $7-million to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. And in a report released earlier this year, the AIHRC declared that “torture is a commonplace practice in Afghanistan’s law enforcement institutions.” It is unclear whether that charge represents real work or a witch hunt.
“Again, Mr. Speaker, here is the truth,” Mr. MacKay said in response to another question from Mr. Duceppe. “We inherited an inadequate transfer arrangement. We inherited a situation that was very difficult with respect to the handling of Taliban prisoners.”
Fair enough. Except that Mr. MacKay’s predecessor as Defence Minister, current government whip Gordon O’Connor, told the House in April 2006 that the government was “quite satisfied” with that agreement. A year later, amid allegations of torture in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister told the House that its agreements were ”operating as they should.” Only a few days after that was a new agreement deemed necessary.
His desk covered with bits of paper, Mr. MacKay endeavoured to explain himself further in response to a question from Ralph Goodale. “Let us be clear, the reality is two and a half years ago we acted on credible evidence,” he said. “We acted on concerns that were being expressed from a number of sources. We invested in the system and, let us be clear, it was because of the concerns that were being expressed by Colvin and others that we did so.”
Fair enough. Except, a month ago both Mr. MacKay and Mr. O’Connor both denied hearing of Mr. Colvin’s concerns.
Marlene Jennings pursued a new point, Mr. MacKay provided a new answer. “Mr. Speaker, I do not want to turn this into a procedural argument,” Mr. MacKay demurred. “Clearly the reality is there was no evidence, none, zero. No credible evidence to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused.”
So there was evidence. At least at some point. Credible evidence even, maybe. Of something. Just not abuse.
After 16 consecutive questions, the House pursued other matters. Then back to the matter of Mr. Colvin.
The NDP’s Paul Dewar again asked the Defence Minister to pursue a public inquiry. Mr. MacKay pretended not to notice. The NDP’s Jack Harris gave it a go. “A public inquiry would give an objective evaluation of the facts, the evidence and the systems now in place, not a charade, like yesterday’s shameless attack by Conservative MPs and now the minister,” he ventured.
One final time to Mr. MacKay. “What is a charade, Mr. Speaker,” the Minister said, “is someone who purports to be a lawyer saying that we should just accept evidence without any test, any process whatsoever that questions what is happening.”
It might seem that Mr. Harris and Mr. MacKay are in agreement. Except, of course, that they are not.
I noticed some of the comments at the end of column suggesting that Paul Martin was informed of the torture. However, they misunderstand. He signed the deal during the election campaign but it was the Harper Government involved with the cover up of torture allegations. Mr. Martin was not PM when the reports began in 2006. Nice try though.
OTTAWA — In an organized smackdown rarely seen in Ottawa, the government turned inward on Thursday to attack a new enemy in its Afghanistan conflict — senior Washington embassy intelligence officer Richard Colvin.
After 15 years of steadily rising through the foreign service ranks, Mr. Colvin now stands accused of being a Taliban stooge, someone so easily duped by torture complaints that he shredded his diplomatic reputation by passing along their accusations.
Mr. Colvin became fodder for such accusations the minute he told MPs that a full year of warnings about detainee torture had been ignored at the highest levels of the military and public service.
He even hinted at tentative, but unproven, connections to the government itself. That made his testimony very, very dangerous — and that’s why the Conservatives have launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Colvin.
But it faces a big problem. Every action by this government to date has only enhanced the diplomat’s credibility.
Mr. Colvin was promoted to the Washington job under a Conservative reign after 16 years of unblemished duty in hotspots like Sri Lanka, Russia, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. While serving in Kandahar, he was told his insights were too sensitive to be put in writing, he says. His emails have been declared off limits on national security grounds. And he’s been told to shut up on this file or risk being charged under the Canada Evidence Act.
Those actions all speak to the significance and sensitivity of his input, not the ramblings of a rogue diplomat spreading stories from his imagination.
The government’s main concern seems to be that Mr. Colvin failed to observe torture first-hand. But it’s not like Afghans invite foreigners into their jails to witness guards delivering a hard beating on fresh prisoners.
Canadian officials never witnessed Maher Arar being brutally cable-whipped in a Syrian jail, but they believed him enough for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to apologize and cut him an $11.5-million compensation cheque.
But, as various Conservative MPs correctly note with too much partisan zeal, there are cracks in Mr. Colvin’s testimony that could be used against him in the court of public opinion.
He could not verify the sample of prisoners he observed had actually been detained by Canadian soldiers.
He described seeing happy, hand-holding prisoners and guards, hardly the sign of an abusive relationship.
He wasn’t trained to decipher the physical scars of torture, which could be the routine cuts and bruises of living in rough-and-tumble Afghanistan.
He refused to raise detainee concerns with the ranking military officer in Afghanistan because he didn’t like the general’s personality.
And let there be no doubt that Taliban detainees do understand the publicity value of lying their asses off about torture, knowing it raises a human rights ruckus for their enemies.
Yet instead of calmly focussing on these oddities, Defence Minister Peter MacKay went much further on Thursday, blasting the “holes” in his testimony and wondering why Mr. Colvin never raised such concerns with him directly.
The big hole in Mr. MacKay’s logic is how he assigned a fluctuating value to Mr. Colvin’s input. The diplomat’s 2006 concerns, which were ignored, are deemed false.
His 2007 input, which was taken into account by the government when it stopped prisoner transfers, was believable. Now in 2009, when his words anger the government, he’s back to spreading lies.
It is entirely conceivable neither the Prime Minister nor his cabinet ministers were in Mr. Colvin’s intelligence loop. But every move reflects the action of a government with something to hide.
If Mr. Colvin is telling the truth — and there’s only a career downside to taking the stand publicly — then the government’s behaviour certainly resembles a cover up.
Meeting minutes were selectively recorded, calls from humanitarian agencies ignored, his report’s distribution lists reduced until he finally was told to stop delivering concerns in writing altogether and now he’s being threatened with legal action if he testifies before the Military Police Complaints Commission.
There’s a serious consequence if Mr. Colvin’s story stands.
“The transfer of detainees to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is contrary to international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict,” military law authority Brig-Gen. Kenneth Watkin told MPs recently.
In other words, if the government knew its detainees would be tortured, it broke the law.
So it appears they believe the only way out of this mess is to break Richard Colvin, even if it means whipping his unblemished reputation.
This is very serious because it could completely undermine the work that our soldiers have been doing, simply because we have a government that refuses to be accountable. Instead they try to discredit their accusers. This is simply not good enough.
The Harper government is training its guns on a diplomat whistleblower who says Canada was complicit in the torture of captured Afghan prisoners, trying to undermine Richard Colvin's credibility as pressure builds to hold a public inquiry into the matter.
“There are incredible holes in the story that have to be examined,” Defence Minister Peter MacKay told Parliament Thursday, even as he rejected opposition calls for a probe into Mr. Colvin's serious charges that Canada's soldiers handed over Afghan prisoners with the knowledge they'd likely be tortured by local interrogators.
The long-simmering detainee issue, ignited again by Mr. Colvin's explosive testimony Wednesday, looks set to dominate the agenda into next week when top military commanders will be hauled before MPs to answer the accusations.
Retired general Rick Hillier, who led Canada's 2006 military foray into southern Afghanistan, joined the Conservatives in dismissing Mr. Colvin's story. He told a Toronto audience Thursday night that he can't recall ever coming across reports from the diplomat, who was a senior Foreign Affairs staffer in Afghanistan for 17 months.
Mr. Hillier derisively compared the political uproar that surrounded Mr. Colvin's parliamentary testimony to people “howling at the moon” and said nobody ever raised torture concerns with him during the 2006-2007 period in question.
“I don't remember reading a single one of those cables [from Mr. Colvin] ... He doesn't stick out in my mind,” Mr. Hillier said of the diplomat's warnings and criticism.
“He appears to have covered an incredibly broad spectrum, much of which I'm not sure he's qualified to talk about.”
The former soldier rejected suggestions Canada was “complicit in any war crimes” – saying Ottawa had a responsible system in place. He also played down the fact Afghan prisoners got hurt in jails. “Even in our own prisons [in Canada] somebody can get beaten up. We know that.”
The Harper government devoted the day to a public-relations counteroffensive against Mr. Colvin through phone calls and e-mails to reporters, as well as Mr. MacKay’s attacks. It painted the career diplomat’s testimony as groundless and “ridiculous” and suggested his reports of torture ultimately stem from Taliban propaganda.
“We are being asked to accept testimony from people who throw acid in the faces of schoolchildren and who blow up buses of civilians in their own country,” Mr. MacKay told the Commons.
The awkward fact for the Conservatives, however, is that Mr. Colvin is trusted by the Canadian government on sensitive matters. He is currently working for Ottawa as a senior intelligence officer at Canada’s embassy in Washington.
In a damning indictment of how Canada handled prisoners early in its southern Afghan mission, Mr. Colvin told MPs Wednesday that all that captives Canadian soldiers transferred to local authorities ended up being tortured – even though many were likely innocent. He said he started red-flagging concerns for senior officials in Ottawa as far back as May 2006 – a year before the Conservatives acted on detainees.
It wasn’t until May of 2007 that the Harper government overhauled its prisoner-transfer agreement with the Afghan government, negotiating a new one that allowed for follow-up visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured. Before then the Conservatives had fiercely defended the treatment of Afghans they had handed over to Afghan security services for interrogation, even though reporting by The Globe and Mail in 2007 showed they were aware of the possibility of torture as far back as 2006.
Even as he attacked Mr. Colvin’s credibility, however, Mr. MacKay conceded that the bolstered prisoner-transfer agreement in 2007 came about in part because of the diplomat’s warnings.
Parliament will delve further into the Colvin testimony next Wednesday when a committee probing the Afghan mission hears from military leaders who oversaw operations in 2006 and 2007. Major-General David Fraser and Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier are scheduled to testify – and the committee is still trying to secure Mr. Hillier as well.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said Canada’s reputation as a champion of human rights has been damaged by the Colvin testimony and said Canadians should be angry at how the Tories treat whistleblowers.
“The first thing that Canadians should conclude is that if you’re going to raise a criticism about this government, you’d better get ready to be insulted. That’s how they treat people raising legitimate questions, including employees of the government of Canada.”
Senior Tory ministers have repeatedly denied hearing of Mr. Colvin’s early warnings.
On Thursday, however, Gordon O'Connor, who served as Canada’s defence minister in 2006 and 2007, acknowledged Mr. Colvin’s reports may have been readbut then dismissed by officials in Canada’s military and federal bureaucracy.
With all the accusations thrown at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, suggesting that he supports torture; it's interesting that while those are fabrications, our own government was complicit in the torture of Afghan prisoners.
They may not have held the whip, but they closed their ears to the cries of pain.
Then to top it off, when it was discovered that they were helping to provide the bodies for the torture chamber, Stockwell Day just turned to the standard Tory action when discovered in a scandal. Lie, lie, lie.
Canada's opposition parties were demanding changes to the Afghanistan detainee transfer agreement and calling for the Defence Minister's resignation following accounts of gruesome torture of prisoners in Kandahar.
Monday's Question Period exploded with a barrage of complaints and repeated calls for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's ouster from the portfolio.
The calls were sparked by a Globe and Mail investigation that uncovered gruesome stories and allegations of abuse by Afghan authorities who take prisoners who have been captured by Canadian troops, despite Canada's assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities should stop immediately, a public inquiry be launched and Mr. O'Connor be sacked. He was backed up by all opposition parties.
The matter dominated early debate in Question Period. Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Mr. O'Conner was “incompetent” and should be replaced by a minister “who can ensure the Geneva convention will be respected” by both Canada and its allies.
Liberal Defence Critic Denis Coderre later told the Globe the party would “do what we have to do” to have their demands answered. “At every level ... [the Harper Government] totally failed in Canada's role regarding human rights,” Mr. Coderre said. “There's too many questions.”
Earlier Monday, human rights experts and university professors Michael Byers and Amir Attaran said the Canadian Forces should stop transferring detainees into Afghan hands and build their own detention facility in the Asian country.
In the current circumstances, they said, Canadian Forces members are complicit in the alleged torture that is inflicted on prisoners of war in Afghan prisons. “Under international law, you are prohibited from transferring to torture. You are prohibited from facilitating torture in any way,” said Mr. Byers, who teaches international law and politics at the University of British Columbia.
“We're not simply speaking about the criminal responsibility of individual Canadian soldiers. We're speaking also of command responsibility, of criminal responsibility that continues up the chain of command, to any superior officer who knew of the risk of torture and who ordered or allowed our soldiers to transfer detainees nevertheless,” he said.
In 30 interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, a Globe and Mail investigation has uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops, despite Canada's assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.
Mr. Attaran said the Canadian government has to make an announcement by the end of the day, given that allegations of torture in Afghan prisons are now public.
“The acid test for (Mr. O'Connor and Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier) is today. Can they, by the end of the day, call it quits on what is an illegal practice?” said the law professor at the University of Ottawa.
Canadian Forces members regularly hold detainees for a few days of questioning at Kandahar Air Field, then give them to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's intelligence police. Over and over, detainees interviewed by The Globe described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms. “If this report is accurate, Canadians have engaged in war crimes, not only individually but also as a matter of policy,” Mr. Byers said.
Then of course, Stephen Harper, rather than answer to the allegations, pulled his usual blame it on the Opposition, who he claimed must apologize to the troops. For What?
In Question Period, in the face of continued questions about the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan, Harper continues to instead choose partisanship over substance to respond to the issue. He continues to fail to recognize the significance of Canada fully adhering to the Geneva Conventions and to be seen to be doing so to the world.
Instead, Harper's instincts are to mock Dion and Layton and use the troops as a shield for his accountability. The opposition should apologize to the troops? Are you kidding me? This is not about the troops. This is about Harper and O'Connor. The only parties that owe an apology to the troops are Harper and O'Connor. They've let this situation develop in Afghanistan where the Canadian Forces are put in the middle of a chaotic no-win situation.
They've ramped up the combat mission yet left our Forces in the position of having no safeguards to ensure the Geneva Conventions will be followed. That's inexcusable and it's a lack of civilian experience and proper oversight of the military operation that is the problem.
But Stockwell Day trumped them all when he told an out and out lie in the House of Commons. He claimed that detainees were being monitored and that Correctional staff from Canada were doing the monitoring. That man has such a wild imagination. I guess he needs something to make up for his complete lack of education and moral compass.
OTTAWA - Urging an end to the "political circus" over Afghan detainees, Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada says no Canadians, including corrections officers, have monitored treatment of prisoners turned over by Canadian military forces.
However, Ambassador Omar Samad said in a Global National interview that Canadian officials will soon have "unrestricted access" to prisons under an agreement currently being worked out with Canada in the wake of political uproar over alleged torture of detainees.
Samad contradicted assertions by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day that Corrections Canada officers have been monitoring prisoner treatment - an assertion Day repeated in the Commons Friday, saying they are there "to see if there are cases of torture."
Samad said Corrections Canada officers have for many months, under their mandate to help build Afghan police capacity, had access to some prisons in Afghanistan and may have come across prisoners.
"It doesn't mean those were detention centres of people who were arrested by Canadian forces," Samad said. "So if this has created confusion, I think that we all need to take a step back and define what we're talking about and to bring some clarity to this instead of turning it into a political circus."
"From the Afghan point of view, it's clear there was no followup or monitoring of detainees caught by Canadian forces turned over to Afghans, especially to the NDS (National Directorate of Security) that took place prior to this current time."
Day came under fire in the Commons earlier, with opposition MPs saying the corrections officers, sent in February to help prison reconstruction efforts, have no mandate to monitor prisoners or enforce a Canada-Afghanistan prisoner transfer agreement.
The minister had trumpeted their role Thursday after three days of confusion and contradiction about alleged abuse of prisoners turned over by Canadian troops, access to Afghan prisons and enforcement of a Canada-Afghan prisoner transfer agreement under which the Afghan human rights commission was to monitor prisoner treatment.
Day had said Thursday that corrections staff had made 15 visits to Afghan jails. But his spokeswoman, Melissa Leclerc, had said later they have no mandate to monitor prisoner treatment.
On Friday, Day told the Commons "they are there to support the Afghan officers by training them in the work that they do in the prisons and also to ensure, to see if there are cases of torture."
After question period, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor should be "put out of his misery" after five days of contradictions and confusion on the Afghan detainee affair.
And former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler told reporters that Canadians must be trained specifically to recognize torture and abuse if they are going to be part of a systematic monitoring system.
"You can't have a drive-by inquiry by some corrections officials who may in fact not even know that it's part of their mandate to monitor the detainees and to understand if there have been situations of torture and inhumane treatment," Cotler said.
Despite promises to hand over unredacted documents, the Reformers are still stalling, once again skipping an important committee meeting.
