• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter rceme_rat
  • Start date Start date
(Sensible's note to mods)
I put the Hillier accusation of War Crimes in a different thread, because though related to the original story, it is not about the investigation of treatment of AFG prisoners, but rather an attempt by a member of Canada's so-called intelligentsia to undermine the mission on a tangent theme.
(Just so people realise that although I knew of the original thread, in my opinion, I decided to start a new one on a separate though related topic)
 
http://tinyurl.com/2d6lhh
Globe and Mail

O'Connor a liability to a vital mission


Friday, April 27, 2007 – Page A20


Every day that Gordon O'Connor remains Defence Minister undermines Canadian confidence in this country's important mission in Afghanistan. As that confidence suffers, so, too, does confidence in the Conservative government. Why then does Prime Minister Stephen Harper leave him in the job?

The answer is not flattering to Mr. Harper. Like U.S. President George W. Bush, he hates to be seen to waver. He will not or cannot admit mistakes. Having left Mr. O'Connor in place in a major cabinet shuffle in January, the Prime Minister is in the same position as the Woody Allen character who falls out of the balcony on opening night: He must return the next night and fall out again, lest anyone think he did so by mistake the first time.

The result is that Mr. O'Connor's job is safe, even as he stumbles into an international human-rights mess in Afghanistan. Wednesday, he did an about-face and admitted that yes, torture is bad and Canada may not be doing all it should to prevent the abuse of detainees turned over by this country's military to Afghan authorities. Better late than never, we suppose; but the deal he announced (still not written down, apparently, except perhaps on the back of a napkin) falls short in a couple of key ways.

The deal is an improvement on the current one, in which an understaffed Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (one person with two assistants, and the responsibility of covering all prisons, military and otherwise, in the south) acts as this country's eyes and ears. Instead, Canada, like the British and the Dutch, will be able to monitor the detainees itself. But the new deal, while apparently applying to a Kandahar prison run by the secret police, may not allow Canada access to other prisons overseen by that same police force.

More fundamentally, why should Canada, the Dutch and the British bear this responsibility separately? Don't the coalition forces together have more leverage than any country acting on its own? Shouldn't the North Atlantic Treaty Organization coalition lean on the Afghan government to clean up its act? Perhaps the worry is that, if NATO monitors the treatment of prisoners in detention, any torture that occurs would be a blemish on the entire force, rather than just a single country. But as things stand now, torture is not likely to abate, and the stain will likely soon spread over NATO anyway. NATO needs to hold President Hamid Karzai government's feet to the fire -- in the metaphorical sense only -- to clean up its act.

Canada's soldiers have behaved honourably and courageously. No evidence has emerged that they have tortured anyone. But while Canadian leaders cite the soldiers' accomplishments ("the change in the life of Afghan moms and dads and sons and daughters is absolutely incredible because of our great work," General Rick Hillier, chief of the Defence Staff, said on Canada AM yesterday), Mr. O'Connor's presence as the public face of the mission means support will continue to bleed away. That's a terrible shame. Mr. Harper should admit his mistake and ask Mr. O'Connor to step aside.

 
Some people need to think it through.  Quite apart from the jurisdiction of the Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, where do objectors propose to hold detainees and how do objectors propose to resolve detainee status at the end-of-mission?  It will be a sad thing indeed if detention by Canadians becomes a ticket to a refugee claim, and even sadder once the exploit is widely known.
 
The real danger here is that the new levels of nausea regarding the treatment of detainees may sub-conciously thwart a soldiers split second decision to give some poor shmuck a lucky break.

I don't mean the guy who has is hands up or who is 'hors de combat', I mean a border-line case where the enemy was not in the process of surrendering or was hors de combat, but still was dealt with in a non-lethal manner.  You know: a buttstroke where a bayonet thrust would have been perfectly acceptable.

Nothing in the LOAC requires one to go out of ones way and accept risk in such a case.

Thus: Don't be surprised if enemy KIA goes up, and EPW goes down.

Not quite the consequences the do-gooders intended, is it?
 
niner domestic said:
Just a little tidbit, a group in BC called Lawyers Against the War attempted in 2004 to petition the International courts to have President George Bush charged with war crimes.  They failed miserably. This latest attempt is striking me as a copy cat to something that has already been done. 

The credibility of these groups in my opinion, is sinking fast and these press conferences, motions, litigation are attempts to excuse themselves for being late for the party as well as perhaps secure donations, grants or funding from an international agency(ies). 

However, that said, this latest attempt to tar and feather the CDS and Min of Def, may very well prove to attract the opposite effect these groups are looking for and that is, civilian support for the mission and these leaders. 

With each failed attempt they learn a little bit more, they figure out where they went wrong and then they try again. One day they will succeed. Notice this time they are forum shopping between the ICC and the FCC?
 
Re -prisoner transfer :
Not as simple as that - check out Macleans -this weeks edition for background and discussion

http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/features/article.jsp?content=20070427_143457_8448

'This is really all Hillier's fault'The law professor who helped kick off the detainee debate on where Canada went wrong

Kate Lunau, Macleans.ca | Apr 27, 2007 | 2:35 pm EST

International law expert Amir Attaran has been front and centre as revelations of torture in Afghan prison cells have surfaced. Attaran filed an Access to Information Act request on Jan. 29 asking for the human-rights report on Afghanistan. He received a censored version of the report earlier this week, after the 30-day deadline for a response had passed and he had complained to Information Commissioner Dan Dupuis.
The Canada Research Chair of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa, Attaran spoke with Macleans.ca

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


"Macleans.ca: What do you think of the new deal to monitor the treatment of detainees that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced this week?

Amir Attaran: Remember this agreement - deal - is limited to the NDS (Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security). It's also limited to Kandahar. If the NDS put a person in Kabul, we wouldn't have a right to inspect under the deal that has been struck.

In fact The Globe and Mail reports that people have been transferred to Kabul. And we have transferred, as recently as last year, detainees not to the NDS. We've transferred them, for example, to the Afghan National Police. We've transferred them to the Afghan National Army.

We're not giving people consistently to the NDS, so what good will it do to inspect [only] at the NDS? This is a scam.

Macleans : How far does the original agreement struck between Afghanistan and Rick Hillier go?

AA: This is really all Hillier's fault - I'm kind of pained to see O'Connor taking it in the teeth, because O'Connor is going down for what Hillier engineered. Hillier signed that agreement and placed no limitation on the rights of the Afghans to transfer persons, even abroad, even to other countries.
 
gordjenkins said:
http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/features/article.jsp?content=20070427_143457_8448

'This is really all Hillier's fault'The law professor who helped kick off the detainee debate on where Canada went wrong

Kate Lunau, Macleans.ca | Apr 27, 2007 | 2:35 pm EST

Macleans : How far does the original agreement struck between Afghanistan and Rick Hillier go?

(Amir Attaran): This is really all Hillier's fault - I'm kind of pained to see O'Connor taking it in the teeth, because O'Connor is going down for what Hillier engineered. Hillier signed that agreement and placed no limitation on the rights of the Afghans to transfer persons, even abroad, even to other countries.

Interestingly I heard the same comment made by another individual on Mike Duffy. He was excusing the Liberal Party and Bill Graham that they were too busy getting re-elected to conduct the affairs of government and the Gen. Hllier took it upon himself to act in the name of Canada.  Therefore Gen. Hillier is to blame not the missing-in-action Government of the Day.

It strikes me that Gen Rick may be the real target here.  As long as he remains as CDS, appointed by Paul Martin and supported by Bill Graham, then he remains the biggest millstone around the Liberal Party of Canada when it comes to Afghanistan.

They supported him.  He supported the mission.  They supported the mission.  He still supports the mission. They no longer support the mission.  They have changed their minds. They are inconstant/fickle/in error then/in error now.
 
I read a column in the Sun today that suggested that Canadians by and large
don't really care.  I'm inclined to agree. 

The Liberals are just P.O.d about Mr Harpers' comment about the Liberals caring more for the bad guys than the good guys.  The first round went to Harper.
I wouldn't be surprised if somehow the last round on this went to Harper.

Prof. Attaran needs to be informed that a de-facto "take no prisoners" policy
could result from HIS behaviour.  If anyone was going to get labeled
"Taliban Supporter" I would limit it to Prof. Attaran and Stephan Dion.
Taliban Jack will NEVER shake that moniker. Even though he (the NDP)voted
against the 2009 deadline.  I'm still puzzled about that.

I would leave the Globe alone on this one.
The papers just do what papers do. It's like blaming the dog when he hasn't
had his walkies.


 
I'm starting to think that some academics are really just on personal crusades to crucify the CDS.

If nothing else we can see that there has been an effort to protect detainees that we hand to the Afghan government & where weaknesses are found improvements have been made.  Under the initial scheme, the ICRC was informed of handovers.  Sure they don't report back to Canada, but the ICRC does communicate with the offending nation in order to improve/rectify violations of international law.

However, Canadians wanted positive feedback that our detainees were treated humanly after we handed them over.  The Afghan Government has a mechanism of its own to look into this: a human rights commission.  It seems reasonable that establishing an agreement with this organization to monitor the detainees would meet our need of positive confirmation of humane treatment.  When that organization makes it known that it is incapable of providing that confirmation, then a new arrangement is made for Canadians to directly confirm the treatment of detainees.

Amir Attaran is concerned that we have handed detainees to various Afghan authorities in the past but that the current agreement is only with one of these organizations.  Is he assuming that we will still hand detainees to ANP & ANA (we could set a policy only to give them to the NDS)?  Is there a less confrontational way that he could have raised in concerns?

It seems that there is no honest desire to fix the problem.  There is only a desire to make an example of (read crucify) people who are more than ready to improve the situation were problems are found but who failed to get the perfect solution from the start.  The only effect initiating MPCC investigations or ICC allegations will be sour the receptiveness of the military toward the individuals raising the concerns.  It is kind of like calling the local police ERT before asking a reasonable neighbor to turn down the radio; you might have a legitimate concern but you only look like an asshole.
 
Now, for a little something from a Corrections Canada official on the ground (highlights mine), shared with the usual disclaimer...

Progress in Afghan prison promising: PRT member
Lisa LaFlamme, CTV.ca, 27 Apr 07
Article link

After three months of working inside Kandahar's Sarposa Provincial Prison, Canada's Director of Correctional Operations Linda Garwood-Filbert has learned to keep her expectations in check.

"Measuring progress on a Western level, people would probably say there isn't any, but on an Afghan level I think it's encouraging," she tells CTV News.

As members of Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team, Garwood-Filbert and her colleagues make regular visits to Sarposa.

Their mandate is to mentor prison staff, help instil rule of law, confidence in government and improve the overall standard of both inmate treatment and the facility itself. It's a broad umbrella that covers everything from staff salaries (about US$70 a month for male correctional officers and $50 for women) to sanitation, cell conditions, and monitoring whether sentence conditions are followed.

"They understand we're not trying to take over," says Garwood-Filbert, adding they try not to push them in areas they don't want to go.

"But any time we've asked for documents, we've been able to go through their daily logs, we've been given access to every area of the prison and I get a sense that they're very sincere."

Over time, they've built a partnership, a relationship. In fact, the warden now calls her 'sister,' which in Afghan culture is a sign of respect and friendship.

Garwood-Filbert's personal passion is improving the situation for female prisoners, most of whom are incarcerated with their children. The female warden, with whom she works closely, lives right on the site.

"She is a 24-7 officer so we would like to bring in more officers. Shift work is not an Afghan concept, it's a Western concept. It might work here, it might not -- we'll only know if we try it," she says.

Lack of access to detainees became an issue this week as allegations of abuse emerged against detainees handed over by NATO soldiers, including Canadians, to Afghan authorities. The facility accused of the greatest mistreatment is the prison run by the National Directorate of Security (NDS), Afghanistan's feared intelligence police. After an initial period of detention at NDS, prisoners are often transferred to Sarposa.

Garwood-Filbert has not worked inside NDS but in her time at Sarposa, while she has heard stories, she has seen no signs of abuse with her own eyes.

She has access to prisoners but admits "we can converse with prisoners but it's not as private as I would like it to be and down the road that is something we will look at."

It is her understanding that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) is given private access to the inmates. However in an interview with CTV News, AIHRC Commissioner Abdul Qadar Noorzai says that was not the case until Thursday of this week. "We couldn't go there but now our people can go anywhere they want, prison, NDS, and other offices."

The new promise of transparency comes following negotiations between Ottawa and Kandahar when the issue exploded in the House of Commons.

When asked what her Afghan counterparts would think of the perception in Canada that detainees are abused, Garwood-Filbert shakes her head.

"I think they would be very confused by that perception because that's certainly not how they are working, not in the prison I work in. They would want to send the message back to Canada that those situations, on the whole, are not happening," she says.

She stresses that the warden at Sarposa has even asked for human rights training and that recently she was presented with a new Inmate Constitution.

"It is very similar to something you would see in Canada," she says. The constitution deals with an inmate's right to prayer, visitors, exercise and food.

Garwood-Filbert says she is not naïve enough to think that cases of abuse don't happen but believes in the progress her team is making.

"It's a generational project, we're probably looking at 20 years but I think a good 5 years would probably show a significant impact," she says.

Also encouraging is the fact that jailers from rural districts are cycling through the city's prison in order to learn from their Canadian mentors.

'If we get it right in Sarposa, we have an ability to have an impact in the whole of Southern Afghanistan," Garwood-Filbert says.

CTV's Lisa LaFlamme conducted this interview with Canada's Director of Correctional Operations Linda Garwood-Filbert in Kandahar on April 24, 2007.

 
A post by CTV's David Akin on his blog:

"Torture in Afghanistan: The Liberals knew"
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/28/2910789.html

A Google translation of the La Presse story is here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient-ff&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberpresse.ca%2Farticle%2F20070428%2FCPACTUALITES%2F704280478%2F6488%2FCPACTUALITES

Mark
Ottawa
 
A guest-post at Daimnation!:

Eddie the Ego
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009349.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Afghan ambassador says Canada has not monitored prisoners
Juliet O'Neill, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, April 28, 2007

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.

Samad said Afghanistan will investigate "if there really have been abuses," and he said cooler heads should prevail "instead of making this more and more confusing for everyone."

He added his issue is not how Canadian politicians have handled the controversy. "My issue is how Afghanistan and my country and my government and my people are portrayed and seen through this political debate that is taking place, which in many cases is not accurate."

He said Afghanistan wants to correct any mistakes that have been made, any abuse that has taken place.

"We are serious about our obligations under international law and Afghan laws," he said.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=d3c60a90-cca2-4489-816c-ea3abd1b9f9f&k=67187
 
Is Canada's defence minister a war criminal? 
Political and military leadership has been playing fast and loose with torture, says Michael Byers

Toronto Star, April 29
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/208200

His tormentors were the Afghan police, he said, but the Canadian soldiers who visited him between beatings had surely heard his screams."

Of the news reports last week, this is the most damning. For it suggests that Canadian soldiers have not only transferred detainees into a known risk of torture, but actively participated in the interrogations the alleged torture was intended to aid...

...any Canadian soldier who transfers a detainee into a known risk of torture could be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. Or, because torture and complicity in torture give rise to "universal jurisdiction," they could be prosecuted in the domestic courts of any country, anywhere.

The same applies to anyone "up the chain of command" who orders a transfer into a known risk of torture, either specifically or as a matter of policy.

Last Wednesday, William Schabas and I sent a letter to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court asking him to open a preliminary examination of Gordon O'Connor, the Canadian minister of national defence, and Gen. Rick Hillier, the Canadian chief of the defence staff.

Professor Schabas, who teaches at the University of Galway in Ireland, is Canada's foremost expert on international criminal law and a recipient of the Order of Canada.

We wrote our letter because of a growing body of evidence that suggests Canada's political and military leadership has been playing fast and loose with torture.

For more than a year, O'Connor and Hillier refused to renegotiate a defence transfer arrangement that provided almost no protections for the rights of Afghan detainees or the obligations of Canadian soldiers – notwithstanding the fact that at least three other NATO countries had much better arrangements in place.

O'Connor misled the House of Commons on the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross in overseeing detainees and has been confused – at best – about the activities and capabilities of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Now, in the face of credible reports of torture, O'Connor and Hillier have refused to order an immediate halt to any further transfers of detainees.

The refusal to stop the transfer of detainees is staggering. It suggests a complete disdain for one of civilization's most fundamental rules.

It is this possibility of a policy of war crimes, crafted by two of Canada's most senior officials, that we believe will attract the attention of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court...

while the International Criminal Court would usually defer to Canada's justice system, it will not do so if Canada "is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution."

In this instance, it seems doubtful that the Canadian government will investigate and prosecute itself.

The prohibition on transferring to torture matters enormously. It protects our soldiers, since their opponents will fight to the death rather than surrender if they have reason to believe they might end up being tortured. It facilitates the mission, for protecting human rights is a key factor in winning hearts and minds. And it upholds Canada's hard-fought reputation as a civilized, law-abiding nation that strives to do good on the world stage.

It is not for me to decide whether Canada's defence minister and chief of the defence staff are war criminals. But the news reports and the applicable rules of international law certainly suggest that possibility. That, in itself, makes me furious beyond belief.

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. He is the author of War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. His next book, Intent for a Nation, will be published in June.

Mark
Ottawa
 
In the Globe & Mail today (Mon 30 Apr), the circus damning the CF continues. I won't repeat the whole article, but two lines caught my attention:

detainees described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms.
Notwithstanding the literary descriptions of interrogation rooms, zap-strapping a detainee is "torture"? If a field-expedient restraining device, serving the same purpose as hand-cuffs, is torture, I guess the opposition parties need to start investigating Canadian police departments.

And then wa-aaaay down in the article, (once it's obvious the reporters are saying nothing of value, so the witch-hunters have probably stopped reading).....
None of the abuse was inflicted by Canadians, and most Afghans captured -- even Taliban sympathizers -- praised the Canadian soldiers for their politeness, their gentle handling of captives and conditions in their detention facility.
Well, no way we can let the Canadian readership get that message  ::)

Now if only the government and media would take a cue from the Taliban sympathizers.  ;)

 
Journeyman said:
Well, no way we can let the Canadian readership get that message   ::)

Now if only the government and media would take a cue from the Taliban sympathizers.   ;)

Well we can't have Canadians getting the obvious message right off the bat could we? That would just be totally against the MSM's current leanings towards left-wing spin.
 
Who cares. I mean if we capture bad guys in their Country, then we hand them over to their authoritys with in that country. We have no direct control over what happens to them in the end. If they get tried and are hanged what are we to do. It is nto our society to dictate what is done.
We are there to help rebuild a system that has for the most part been in place for many years. They are making head way.
For the Liberals/NDP and the other partys to make such a big claim about this.

Why don't we ask for some Terrorists to come over here and start doing their thing and see how they feel after a few years of dealing with car bombs, and major killings. I bet there tone changes on the whole torture deal.

What is torture, and what is it that the Afgans have done.
Did they beat to an inch of there life, did they shock, zap, water torture? Or did they keep them up all night, not allowing them to sleep?

I liked the one video of the US Commander, where he said, No prisoners, kill everyone of them people. In referance to the enemy.
 
Anyone else wonder exactly how effective the lauded Dutch and British detainee transfer agreements actually are at preventing abuse at the hands of Afghan authorities?

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/time-to-ask-question-yet-again.html

Just because it's been written down doesn't mean its happening as written.  Where are our valiant investigative journalists on this one?
 
For curiosities sake, has there ever been a public outcry when detainees on a peacekeeping operation were handed back to their national authorities?
 
For curiosities sake, has there ever been a public outcry when detainees on a peacekeeping operation were handed back to their national authorities?

Excellent question.  I'd guess the first step is to determine if there have been any instances where we detained people and handed them back to a questionable local authority.  Then we can see if there was any outcry at the time.

Anyone out there with any first-hand experience in the matter?
 
Back
Top