• 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
Otto Fest said:
In WW2 the Germans surrendered to us rather than the Brits, Yanks, or God forbid the Russians.
Now THAT'S a generalisation if I ever heard one!  What of the 250 000 who surrendered to the Yanks and Brits in early 43 in Tunisia, or the 90 000 who surrendered to the Soviets at Stalingrad around the same time?  Also let us not forget the "arrangements" (alleged, anyway) between Canadians and the SS in Normandy.
 
Once the prisoners are turned over to the Afghan government then they are no longer our concern. The only thing that can be done is to try and impress upon our allies the need to treat prisoners humanely, something that is a somewhat alien notion to the Afghanis. Gitmo has gotten some bad knocks but it is still far better than being held in an Afghan prison or even a Mexican prison for that matter.
 
Actually, that Generalization has a bit of anecdotal and empirical data behind it.  In both The Forgotten Soldier and Ashes of Honour there is debate among the Germans who to surrender to.  Of those who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5% ever lived to see Germany again.  The Germans used Russian prisoners to produce Typhus Serum.  Many German POWs spent more than 10 years in Russia and The Ukraine reconstructing destroyed territories.

Von Kleist died in Soviet captivity after thirty years; Von Manstein was released from western detention after serving 4 years of a 12 year sentence.

I must assume the 'arrangements' you refer to have to do with the R Wpg R.  I don't think they're alleged as I've spoke with their veterans.  I'll throw Malmedy in just for reference.  In Other Causes it's also alleged that the Americans had a program to minimize the German POW problem as well.

My father complained that German POWs were treated better than the Canadian soldier were.

So, yeah, quite a generalization.

 
tomahawk6 said:
Once the prisoners are turned over to the Afghan government then they are no longer our concern..

Well...in a very narrow military sense they might  not be "our concern", but (at least in Canada) they have surfaced twice now as objects of political and public concern (the earlier incidence being when JTFII took some baddies captive in the early days of our presence in Afgh). And, since anything political/public pretty rapidly translates into an effect of some sort on us, it does end up being our concern.

Public  and political scrutiny of the military are generally both good and important in the long run (although it stings sometimes...), and if we appear to do somehing that attracts attention, we have to accept the fact. I would much rather have a public and a political system who are uncomfortable about torture and the abuse of prisoners, thereby reminding us of the importance of staying out of that swamp ourselves, than a blind or complicit public that doesn't care.

The only thing that can be done is to try and impress upon our allies the need to treat prisoners humanely, something that is a somewhat alien notion to the Afghanis
I agree with this, overall. If we are really going to "win" in Afgh, or in any  other COIN op, IMHO it will be by offering the population something better than what they have, in a manner that they can accept. It will not be ignoring or winking at torture or other stupid atrocities. If we want to appear "better", we have to walk the walk.
While we (the NATO "we")  need to keep the pressure on the Afgh Govt and security forces to change, we can't do it for them nor should we. If we want them to change permanently, they will have to do it from within, genuinely. 

Cheers


 
When you're dealing with a country that is just coming out of the stone age (no matter how many modern gadgets are around) you have to expect a rocky and bumpy ride.  It is simplistic and unrealistic for anyone to expect the Afghan Gov't to have the capacity to operate & behave like a modern "1st world" country.
 
geo said:
When you're dealing with a country that is just coming out of the stone age (no matter how many modern gadgets are around) you have to expect a rocky and bumpy ride.  It is simplistic and unrealistic for anyone to expect the Afghan Gov't to have the capacity to operate & behave like a modern "1st world" country.

Well, the people who make up the GoA and the leadership of its security forces aren't really "just coming out of the stone age": most of them have been pretty well educated and they understand much more than people seem to be willing to give them credit for. IMHO the biggest problem lies further down the chain with lesser officers and officials who don't get the bigger picture and can't kick old habits. And, even "modern" countries can revert to torture and uncontrolled abuse pretty easily. Just to pick a few examples, look at the British concentration camps during the South African War, the French use of torture throughout their colonial empire up to and including Algeria, and the behaviour of various police and security agencies in various South Amerrican countries that are otherwise fairly modern.

Cheers
 
PBI,
Don't disagree with you. 

The GoA leadership might well be educated but the lion's share of the population hasn't benefited from the same oportunities.

There is a little bit of ruthlessness in all of us.  Our own troops reaction in Normandy (alleged or true) to the viciousness of the SS is but one example.

I think that almost everyone is "trying to do the right thing" and that we are all headed in the right direction - but old habbits are hard to break - esp when viciousness & brutality delivers results.
 
geo said:
There is a little bit of ruthlessness in all of us.  Our own troops reaction in Normandy (alleged or true) to the viciousness of the SS is but one example.

I think that almost everyone is "trying to do the right thing" and that we are all headed in the right direction - but old habbits are hard to break - esp when viciousness & brutality delivers results.

Good point-I just returned from the annual Cdn Inf Conference meeting, during which one of the guest speakers described the importance of keeping rage and anger under control in combat, or more specifically in those few minutes immediately following an engagement when the blood is stil pumping and trigger fingers are twitchy-this is the moment when many war crimes have happened throughout history. His point was that it takes very strong and aggressive leadership at the tactical level to stop it.  IMHO if you examine most atrocities you will not have to look very far to find a tactical leader who either gave perrmission, set a criminal example, or "looked the other way".

Cheers
 
Link to article, posted in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Charter defence ends at border, top court rules
Canadians accused of crimes abroad aren't guaranteed same rights as at home
 
Janice Tibbetts
The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, June 08, 2007

Canadians accused of crimes abroad are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they're being investigated by Canadian or foreign police, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday.

"When individuals choose to engage in criminal activities that cross Canada's territorial limits, they can have no guarantee that they carry Charter rights with them out of the country," wrote Justice Louis LeBel.

The decision was a loss for Lawrence Richard Hape, a Canadian businessman from Newmarket, Ont., who was convicted in Canada of laundering the proceeds of drug money after an investigation of his trust company in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the late-1990s. Mr. Hape, who is in his mid-50s, was sentenced to 30-months imprisonment following his 2002 trial.

Mr. Hape unsuccessfully argued that the Supreme Court should overturn his conviction because the RCMP violated his Charter right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure when they conducted covert raids of his company, downloaded information from his computer system and seized more than 100 boxes of records.

The top court accepted the Crown's argument that the Charter doesn't apply because the Turks and Caicos police, not the RCMP, were in charge of the investigation on the islands.

"In a co-operative investigation, Canada cannot simply walk away when another country insists on following its own investigation and enforcement procedures rather than ours," Judge LeBel wrote.

He said it is necessary to maintain goodwill among countries "in an era characterized by transnational criminal activity and by the ease and speed with which people and goods now cross the border."

While the court's ruling in Mr. Hape's case was unanimous, the judges split into three camps over whether the Charter should ever apply outside Canada's borders.

Judge LeBel, writing for the five-judge majority, said the only exceptions to the general rule are when foreign countries flout accepted international norms and conventions, such as violating human rights or committing crimes against humanity.

"Deference to the foreign law ends where clear violations of international law and fundamental human rights begin."

Justice Ian Binnie, writing separate but concurring reasons, warned that the majority has prematurely boxed in the court with its declaration that the Charter is all but void for police investigations in foreign countries.

"Issues of more far-reaching importance will soon confront Canadian courts, especially in the context of the 'war on terror' and its progeny," Judge Binnie wrote. "We should, in my view, avoid premature pronouncements that restrict the application of the (Charter)."


Mr. Hape's lawyer, Alan Gold, was unavailable for comment.

The ruling, which upholds two earlier decisions in the Ontario courts, builds on four Supreme Court rulings during the 1990s on whether the Charter applies outside Canada, including two decisions that were rendered against Canadians who argued they were not given a proper warning about their right to a lawyer when they were questioned by American authorities.

In 1988, the Supreme Court also ruled that the RCMP could obtain the Swiss banking records of Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-Canadian businessman, without a judge's prior approval. In that case, the court found that the Charter didn't apply because the RCMP were only making the request, and it was Swiss authorities who were carrying it out.

In the fourth case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Charter did apply abroad and the judges ordered a new trial for an American being tried in Canada. The court found that Vancouver police officers had interrogated the man in the United States without advising him of his right to a lawyer.

The difference between that case and Mr. Hape's, the court decided, is that the interrogation was conducted by Canadian authorities rather than foreign ones, so there was no interference with another country's sovereignty.

I believe this ruling is going to have a huge impact on the ongoing complaints and investigations with relation to treatment of those Canada has turned over and think the bar has been raised to the point where the activists now have to prove vice simply allege human rights abuses in order to make a Charter challenge.  It is obvious the Court has taken notice of ongoing issues and is fully anticipating these issues will soon land on its docket. 

Bold is mine.
 
And nor should the Canadian Constitution apply outside of Canada. I do not think we should export our rules and expect them to be applicable in other countries, nor do I think Canadians, who participate in criminal acts outside of Canada, think they should be judged under our rules.

Lately there has been a huge hue and cry for the poor Canadians accused/convicted of crimes elsewhere being brought home for proper treatment/judgement.

Nah.....sucker, you violate their laws, you pay their price.....and maybe we won't cancel your citizenship, because you have done nothing the endear yourself to Canada.....Kadhar is a prime example
 
It's never ending.
Tories under fire again over detainee controversy
14/06/2007 5:47:35 PM 
Opposition parties are blasting the government on the Afghan detainee controversy once again, this time over the question of who will have access to results of a probe into torture allegations.

Afghan detainees captured by Canadians have made allegations that they're being abused after being handed over to local authorities.

Canadian officials heard the complaints while visiting prisons under the agreement signed in early May that allows Canadians greater access to prisoners.

Since signing a revised prisoner transfer agreement, the Conservatives have insisted the International Red Cross will be informed of the results of the investigation by Afghan authorities.

But the Red Cross says it has no such role in the war-torn country and isn't expecting a report of any kind.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said the Red Cross contradicted the government's claims that the organization is kept informed of the progress of Afghan authorities' investigations into allegations of detainee abuse.

Dion said the head of the Red Cross, in Kabul, confirmed that his organization "does not have access to inquiries into torture in Afghanistan."

"Will the prime minister admit that today the only ones who are investigating allegations of torture in afghanistan are the afghan authorities?" said Dion.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said the revised agreement put the onus on the Afghans to investigate abuse complaints, to take corrective action and to advise both Canada and the Red Cross.

Van Load said the Red Cross has a right to visit detainees "at any time" and that right "derives from international law."

"And I think everyone in this House is well familiar with our supplementary agreement that we entered into with the government of Afghanistan, and that reaffirms a role for the Red Cross," Van Loan told the House.

"But of course in that agreement -- and everybody knows because it was tabled in this House -- sets out quite clearly that the onus is on the government of Afghanistan to advise Canada."

Dion then accused the government of censoring passages of a report outlining the realities of the detainne situation in Afghanistan in order to avoid further embarrassment on the issue.

He said the prime minister's own office produced a report last November that the threat of the Taliban in Afghanistan could "split the country in two." This report was never published, said Dion, and the Harper government instead published a very "rosy" report that indicated the situation on the ground was better than it was.

"This is no way to support troops in Afghanistan, how could the prime minister let the report be tabled when he knew it was false?" said Dion.

"You would have to be living under a rock not to realize that our troops are meeting great challenges in Afghanistan," responsed Van Loan. "And we are very proud of the work that they are doing and we are quite sure that the Liberal leader is aware of that as well. Something he never talks about is the progress in Afghanistan..."
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070614%2fafghan_detainees_070614&showbyline=True
 
Hillier muzzles military over detainees
ALAN FREEMAN AND JEFF ESAU From Monday's Globe and Mail July 9, 2007
Article Link

OTTAWA — The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.

According to documents made available to The Globe and Mail, the Strategic Joint Staff, a newly created group that advises Gen. Hillier, has been reviewing all Access to Information requests about detainees since March, shortly after the detainee controversy first erupted.

The Strategic Joint Staff has given strict guidance to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, on what documents should be withheld. The result is that the flow of documents about detainees has virtually dried up and the department has summarily rejected requests for the same kind of documents it released earlier.

In recent letters responding to requests filed on behalf of The Globe and Mail, Ms. Jansen has “exempted in its entirety” the disclosure of detainee transfer logs, medical records, witness statements and other processing forms. The department said the information could not be disclosed for national security reasons.
More on link
 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2372

Statement by the Deputy Minister of National Defence on the Access to Information Review Process
NR–07.067 - July 11, 2007

OTTAWA – Several recent media stories have claimed that the Department of National Defence (DND) is blocking “any and all information about Canada's mission in Afghanistan.” This is not only inaccurate and misleading, it also implies that Defence officials are somehow acting in bad faith.

Canadians expect the Department and Canadian Forces to protect the security of Canadian troops who are in harm’s way, and to mitigate the risks they face as much as possible.  In addressing information requests, the Department applies all appropriate procedures and Access to Information protocols; as well, departmental processes are consistent with Treasury Board guidelines.

DND has received hundreds of requests for operational information, including requests for all operational plans, planning documents, tactical techniques and procedures, and lessons learned.  As a result of this unprecedented demand for sensitive information, the Strategic Joint Staff was given responsibility to review recommended severances in accordance with the standard Access to Information (ATI) process.  This review allows for operational oversight that ensures consistency in the release of information; it does not constitute a change to the standard ATI process in DND.  This is being done for one reason and one reason alone: to ensure there is no inadvertent release of information that could assist the enemy and put Canadian, allied or Afghan lives at greater risk.

DND fully understands its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act, and the importance of providing appropriate information to the public.  There must, however, be a balance between our responsibility to make information available to the public and our responsibility to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform.  The safeguarding of some information specific to the mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of Canadian and Allied personnel.

-30-

NOTE TO EDITORS:  Mr. Ward P.D. Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence, has authorized the release of this statement.
 
Gen Hillier responds to to an editorial written concerning this issue with a letter to the editor.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f23cc7f2-572d-47f2-868a-a19bf783ac16
Military secrecy necessary: Hillier
 
The Edmonton Journal Monday, July 16, 2007

Re: "Military secrecy serves society ill," Editorial, July 12.

As chief of the defence staff, I have the honour and responsibility to lead our fine young men and women in the missions set before them by the government of Canada. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen face real danger on many missions they are asked to deploy on -- none more so than Afghanistan.

We strive to reduce risks to those great Canadians as much as possible by ensuring they have the right equipment, training and leadership. It is also our responsibility to protect operational security and information that could be potentially used by our adversaries to attack and kill our soldiers and those who we are there to help -- the people of Afghanistan.

Deputy minister Ward Elcock has issued a statement saying that the Department of National Defence "applies all appropriate procedures and Access to Information protocols; as well, departmental processes are consistent with Treasury Board guidelines.

"DND has received hundreds of requests for operational information, including requests for all operational plans, planning documents, tactical techniques and procedures, and lessons learned. As a result of this unprecedented demand for sensitive information, the Strategic Joint Staff was given responsibility to review recommended severances in accordance with the standard Access to Information (ATI) process.

"This review allows for operational oversight that ensures consistency in the release of information; it does not constitute a change to the standard ATI process in DND. This is being done for one reason and one reason alone: to ensure there is no inadvertent release of information that could assist the enemy and put Canadian, allied or Afghan lives at greater risk.

"DND fully understands its responsibilities under the Access to Information Act, and the importance of providing appropriate information to the public. There must, however, be a balance between our responsibility to make information available to the public and our responsibility to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform. The safeguarding of some information specific to the mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of Canadian and Allied personnel."

Gen. R.J. Hillier,

Chief of the Defence Staff, Ottawa
 
From the Globe:

NDP takes on Hillier over files access
MATT HARTLEY

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

July 18, 2007 at 2:15 AM EDT

The NDP has threatened to haul General Rick Hillier before a House of Commons committee unless the Department of National Defence explains within 10 days the “stonewalling and unreasonable delays in obtaining detainee records.”

In a formal letter addressed to Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, NDP defence critic Dawn Black said she will move to recall the standing committee on national defence and call Gen. Hillier, the deputy minister and “all relevant officials” to testify – unless the department provides “an explanation of the rationale, legal or otherwise, for the department to deny the release of information related to detainees.”

The letter also calls for an explanation of Gen. Hillier's involvement in the decision not to release the documents. Ms. Black said in an interview that she is most concerned with the lack of civilian oversight concerning how to apply the access-to-information process at National Defence.

“From my reading of the Access to Information Act, the only position for the Chief of Defence Staff is that he's subject to the act. He's not meant to administer the act,” she said.

More on link:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070718.wdefence18/BNStory/National/home
 
Sounds like the press wants us to do their job for them.  All I ever seem to read is armchair quarterbacking on one side and public affairs press releases barely reworded on the other. Now they even do stories about other reporters stories. When did journalistic integrity and competence go down the toilet? The public must be wondering now. If the detainees were well treated how could that endanger our soldiers? Wouldn't that make them safer? This is not looking too good from a PR standpoint. Joe Public doesn't really get the finer points of Op Sec unless its explained slowly with short words. Perhaps the public should be told the truth. That we don't have resources to handle our detainees, but if you would like us too you need to pay for it. I think that would shut done the debate pretty quickly. Everyone wants caviar on a Kraft Dinner budget.

Anyway, back on topic. Get your own stories you hacks. You can't have access to operational info during a war.
 
It's already been explained:

"This review allows for operational oversight that ensures consistency in the release of information; it does not constitute a change to the standard ATI process in DND. This is being done for one reason and one reason alone: to ensure there is no inadvertent release of information that could assist the enemy and put Canadian, allied or Afghan lives at greater risk.

Just the 'Dippers' fishing for BBQ votes on the backs of the soldiers again.

 
The NDP is in a furious, near life-or-death struggle with the Greens and the Liberals (a two front war!) in several (maybe 20+?) seats in Greater Vancouver and Toronto and even, in one case, in Montreal.

The very survival of the NDP may be at stake.  The Liberals may be in a worse situation - a three and, in Quebec, even a four front war.

You, those of you in uniform, are props in the theatrics with which the war is being fought, for now.
 
Back
Top