Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[Greymatters]

“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.

In other words, we're not supposed to think, just do as we are told?  :

 

[punisher_6d]

Yes, fall in line and eat your SOYLENT GREEN.  Oops, I meant to post that in the "Army food is 'cheaper than a dog's dinner'" thread. ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a fine example of a drive-by smear perpetrated by columnist Lawrence martin against Gen. Hillier:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070718.wcomartin19/BNStory/Front/home

Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
July 18, 2007 at 11:12 PM EDT

Under what might be called the incarceration of information, as opposed to the freedom of it, two remarkable examples made it to the forefront last week. News from the trial of Conrad Black overshadowed them. But they shouldn't be forgotten.

One was the revelation that our Department of National Defence monitored Steven Staples, head of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, because he opposed the war in Afghanistan. A report was produced on his activities, including a speech to a Halifax peace group. The report was sent to 50 officers, including two brigadier-generals. Confronted with the allegation, DND officials tried to cover it up. They initially denied the activity.

The second example featured General Rick Hillier, our top soldier. He halted the release of documents related to detainees captured in Afghanistan. The detainee story caused the government and Gen. Hillier's department many embarrassing moments in the spring. So, basically, they decided, as per the detainee file, to ignore access-to-information laws. They are invoking that old standby, “reasons of national security,” to get around them.

The generals, it seems, are becoming increasingly aggravated by the democratic process and the freedoms therein.

Take, for instance, this Staples fellow. What a menace he is. His group works on behalf of the poor, on behalf of curtailing the nuclear weapons buildup, on behalf of peace. Whew! With that kind of track record, no wonder he's in trouble.

But it doesn't stop there. In addition to Afghanistan, Mr. Staples was also a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq and things such as missile defence. Need any more be said? Bring on the wiretappers.

Actually, we don't know how much snooping DND did on him. The records that were finally released, after the Ottawa Citizen filed a complaint with the country's Information Commissioner, covered only a 15-day period last year. It's reasonable to assume that there was more surveillance and that DND is monitoring many others among the half of the Canadian population opposing the war in Afghanistan. The department is well-positioned to know who's who – its deputy minister, Ward Elcock, used to be the head of CSIS.

On the prisoner detainee file, no one should be surprised at the clampdown. Canadians who are sending their kids off to war will not even be told how many prisoners are being taken over there. The file simply got too hot.

In the spring, a parliamentary committee heard allegations that the Department of Foreign Affairs engaged in a cover-up to prevent the release of a scathing report on the detainees' treatment in Afghan jails. The full story has yet to emerge, and it likely never will.

Lest anyone think the media have been overly harsh, it needs to be noted that they are not the only ones alleging the incarceration of information. In May, Robert Marleau, the new federal Information Commissioner, issued a report. Mr. Marleau was said to be a more lenient fellow than his predecessor, John Reid, who had repudiated the government's performance. But Mr. Marleau couldn't find a way to sugar-coat what was going on.

He looked, for example, at the performance of the Privy Council Office. On the bureaucratic ladder, you can't get any higher than this club, which is the arm of the Prime Minister's Office. He found its compliance with access regulations to be dismal. “Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing,” Mr. Marleau said, “or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement.”

The government, it need be recalled, promised a new era of transparency and accountability. After Liberal malfeasance, it was elected, in at least some measure, for this very reason.

Some might wish to remind the generals and others of the pledge. And they need to be reminded more than once. In many cases, what happens is that officials wait for the media blow-over effect. They realize that, after a couple of days, journalists will move on to other fare. Stories such as Steven Staples being put under surveillance will be forgotten, and they will be off the hook.

The media's memory has to be longer. They can't allow it to happen.

First: on the Staples file, Martin fails to note that the “monitoring” was probably done by DND public affairs officers intent on countering the rubbish Staples propagates.  That the file only made it as far as two BGens shows that it was completely unimportant – a ‘technical’ investigation designed to inform specialists.

Second: Martin has no idea, none at all, about why it might be important (or not) to control information about detainees.  Nor does he care.  It is an excuse to smear the CDS, a man for whom Martin has frequently expressed contempt because Hillier is too American for Martin’s taste.  It is a petty, personal spat which the Globe’s editors have ‘elevated’ to their opinion pages.

This is classic yellow journalism.

 

[GAP]

Ottawa should consider opening Cdn detention centre in Afghanistan: Red Cross
Article Link

HALIFAX (CP) — Ottawa should examine whether Canada needs its own detention facility in Afghanistan, a legal adviser with the Canadian Red Cross said Saturday.

"I'm not saying that it's ideal that our country detains, but it should be an option," said Isabelle Daoust during a panel discussion.

The discussion, which focused on Canada's role regarding the treatment of detainees in the war-torn country, was part of a one-day humanitarian conference at Dalhousie University.

Daoust, who's based in Ottawa, said the federal government must find a way to ensure the rights of detainees in Afghanistan are being upheld.

"That's a political decision that needs to be taken by our government," she said in an interview following the panel discussion.

There have been allegations that some prisoners taken by the Canadian military were abused after being transferred to Aghan jails.

In response to the claims, Ottawa renegotiated its prisoner transfer agreement with Afghanistan to give Canadian officials access to the detainees once they were transferred to Aghan authorities.

Amnesty International has launched a court challenge to bar Ottawa from transferring any more prisoners to the Afghan jails.

Hilary Homes, a campaigner with the human rights group, said NATO countries ultimately have to decide how to handle detainees.

"These countries have together to decide can they do something jointly," Homes, who also took part in the panel discussion, said in an interview.

"If they do that, can it also involve some Afghan officials and be part of that long-term reconstruction that needs to take place? ... There is the capacity, if they choose to have it, to detain somebody in the right conditions."
More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

And Amnesty International jumps into the fray as well - usual disclaimer...

NATO has responsibility to ensure prisoners are cared for: Amnesty
RICHARD CUTHBERTSON, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 16 Sept 07
Article link

Monitoring alone won't ensure that detainees don't face the possibility of torture after they are handed over from Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities, says a campaigner for Amnesty International.

Hilary Homes said in an interview that immediate protection issues of detainees after their transfer aren't being dealt with. NATO must take responsibility, and that could include running their own detention facility in Afghanistan, she said.

Homes was speaking at a panel discussion yesterday at the Dalhousie's law school on Canada's responsibility toward Afghan detainees. The discussion was part of the third annual conference on International Humanitarian Law.

Allegations have emerged that some prisoners taken in custody by the Canadian Forces were tortured after they were transferred to Afghan authorities. In May, a new agreement was signed which allowed Canadians officials unrestricted access to transferred prisoners in order to monitor their treatment.

Amnesty International has launched an action in the Federal Court of Canada and is seeking an order that would prevent such transfers.

While monitoring is an important part of making sure that detainees are treated properly, Homes said it looks at the general condition. It's limited when tracking the fate of individual prisoners.

"Monitoring does not guarantee an investigation, it does not guarantee anyone held accountable, and it does not guarantee redress," Homes said.

"Those are fundamental parts of what it means to prevent torture in the future. Again, it does not guarantee that orders will even be issued not to torture."

A NATO detention facility could be run with the help of Afghans, Homes said, as part of the reconstruction effort.

The audience at the panel discussion also heard from a senior advisor for international humanitarian law for the Canadian Red Cross. In an interview, Isabelle Daoust said that deciding what body of law governs detainees is sometimes blurry.

"I think that the confusion rests around people who are sporadically taking up arms and committing crimes like setting up a bomb," Daoust said. "And so you're unsure if this is part of the legitimate fighting that's going on or rather corresponds to criminal activity."

Daoust said that traditional POWs are legitimate combatants being held, not for punishment, but simply until the fighting ends.

But, she said: "What we're seeing now is people being captured and interrogated and being accused of terrorism acts or criminal behaviours, yet it doesn't seem like any charges are being brought against them and therefore you have a sense that their detention is indefinite."

 

[Armymedic]

Ludacris.

Two torpedoes for there floating idea:

1. As most Afghans detainees do not belong to a uniformed milita but a terrorist/insugent group, they are criminals not POWs and must be tried and judged under the law of the land (which happens to be Afghanistan) and,

2. who will run and monitor the facility after Canada military pulls out of Afghanistan?

 

[geo]

to this I say  
Pzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[Franko]

Hmmm....the Liberals, Bloc and NDP want us out completely and the Red Cross wants us to build and man prisons.

Someone not paying attention to the news lately methinks.

Regards

 

[a_majoor]

Hmmm....the Liberals, Bloc and NDP want us out completely and the Red Cross wants us to build and man prisons.

Someone not paying attention to the news lately methinks.

Regards

More likely no one is paying attention to the historical background or the situation on the ground. I still get astonished looks from people when I tell them we arrived in Kandahar in 2002, and I am surprised that no one has had a stroke or seizure when I describe the progress of the PRT.

Suggestions like pulling out, ISAF building and manning prisons, "we are losing" etc. can only occur when the "debate" is happening in a vacuum. Even with only limited exposure from being on KAF itself provides enough insight that these ideas never even entered my mind (there being little or no evidence whatsoever to support them).

Since there is no evidence to support these sorts of ideas, the next step for the reader is to look for the true motive behind them.

 

[HDE]

I'd think part of the plan would be to accord Afghan detainees the same rights and protection as accorded to Canadian prisoners in Canadian prisons.  That'd be a real mess to resolve.

 

[DocBacon]

I believe that the IRC and other NGO's with vision problems (they don't see any difference between the NATO, ANP and ANA forces and the Taliban) will push for captured combatants to be treated as we would treat criminals in the west: same standards of evidence, same presumption of innocence, same access to lawyers.  If we don't deliver such treatment, and who can in a combat zone, then we are guilty in the media of maltreatment of our prisoners and we become the oppressive bad guys in this scenario.

Going down that road is a no-win.  IMHO we stay the course and turn over our prisoners to the legal authorities and let the IRC try a moral equivalence argument with someone who has had to live under the oppression of the Taliban.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Any combatant (legitimate or not) may be detained for the duration of hostilities.  No lawyers are necessary.  Think of WWII prison camps.  He may be paroled.  At the end of hostilities he must be released to his own forces (or nation).  It won't be our job to provide protection against the possibility of his meeting a bad end at the hands of anyone with a grudge.

Any illegimate combatant, or any legitimate combatant who commits a crime under his own rules of conduct, international law, or such rules as we reasonably impose on those in detention, may be tried as a criminal by whoever has jurisdiction.  Since we aren't going to bring these people to Canada as refugees, they will have to be released to face whatever fate awaits them.  We may as well do it immediately as later; regardless, justice should be timely.  People who believe we need to safeguard detainees' welfare against the authorities of Afghanistan or any other nation have not thought the problem through.

If anyone proposes to bring them here as refugees, I will be exceedingly enraged.

 

[garb811]

And more on the non-news front of this never-ending saga of the investigations into the allegations of abuse, but at least now we know that people who are subject to an investigation "might" be subject to being charged.  Whodathunkit?!

Posted in accordance with the Fair Dealings proviosions of the Copyright Act:  Charges weighed against military police

PAUL KORING
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Several military police officers may face charges or disciplinary action for failing to call a full investigation into how Afghan prisoners were injured while in Canadian custody, according to sources close to the multiple investigations into allegations of detainee abuse.

But the Canadian Special Forces soldiers who captured and transported the Afghans suspected of being Taliban insurgents are expected to be cleared of using abusive or excessive force, the sources said.

Although the criminal investigation into allegations of abuse and military police conduct is continuing, The Globe and Mail has learned that no evidence points to unwarranted beatings or abuse of the three Afghans who suffered suspicious injuries, including facial cuts and bruises.

Sources familiar with the multiple (and in some cases parallel) investigations spoke on condition that they not be identified.

Nearly eight months after the probes were launched, soon after The Globe published articles about suspicious and unexplained injuries suffered by Afghan detainees while they were in the custody of Canadian soldiers, none of the inquiries are complete.

But the key criminal probe by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, created to be sufficiently independent that it can examine military police conduct and other sensitive issues, is nearing completion.

“They are looking at whether the MPs failed to launch an investigation despite knowing that detainees had been injured by other MPs,” one source said.

A similar although apparently far less serious instance did result in a full-blown CFNIS investigation only two weeks after the incident involving the three Afghans captured by Canadian special forces.

In the second incident, military police ordered a CFNIS probe after it “was alleged that some Military Police had firmly grabbed the arms of one detainee while taking him to a military transport vehicle” on April 23, 2006. “The investigation was conducted by two senior members of the CFNIS” and included questioning of “all personnel involved in the transfer as well as with independent witnesses who confirmed that the detainee was handled in a highly professional manner,” the Canadian Forces said last spring in describing the only investigation into an allegation of detainee abuse.

The glaring disparity between that careful and immediate investigation and the apparent absence of any inquiry into the far more serious incident two weeks before now lies at the centre of the current CFNIS probe into the conduct of military police.

The circumstances surrounding how the detainees came to suffer facial cuts and bruises have yet to be fully explained.

What is known is that Canadian Special Forces soldiers captured the three Taliban suspects near the village of Dukah on April 6, 2006. One escaped and was recaptured the next day. They were then bound and flown in a U.S. Chinook helicopter – although still guarded by Canadian Special Forces soldiers – to Kandahar airbase. According to the Canadian Forces account, it was as the suspects were being handed over to Canadian military police after disembarking from the helicopter that the fracas that resulted in injuries occurred.

Although “already restrained by nylon straps to his wrists, … the detainee used his legs to leverage himself off the back of a vehicle in an effort to generate resistance against the Military Police escorting him. In accordance with proper use of force procedures, Military Police used appropriate physical control techniques to restrain,” according to the official version of the incident released last spring in response to questions from The Globe.

Whether the current NIS probe will come to the same conclusion – that the MPs used only appropriate force to subdue the prisoner – won't be known until the criminal inquiry is complete.

That issue is separate from whether senior military police in Kandahar should have called in the CFNIS to investigate at the time, not nine months later when the high command in Ottawa reacted to published reports detailing the injuries.

The CFNIS won't comment on the progress of its inquiry. Nor will it say whether it ever managed to track down the detainees who were released by the Afghan police after being handed over by Canadian troops.

“That matter is still part of the ongoing investigation,” Captain Cindy Tessier said. She declined to confirm or deny that the former detainees had ever given their side of the story to CFNIS investigators.

Meanwhile, two other investigations are on hold waiting for the CFNIS probe to finish its questioning of several key figures, believed to be senior military police officers who were in a position to order an investigation into the detainee injuries at the time but didn't.

“Witnesses must first be interviewed by the CFNIS and then released by them,” said Lieutenant-Commander Philip Anido, a spokesman for the Board of Inquiry established to look into Canadian Forces polices and practices regarding detainees.

 

[GAP]

Feds urge dismissal of challenge to detainee policy
Updated Wed. Oct. 17 2007 5:01 PM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- A federal lawyer characterized a legal challenge to the government's prisoner transfer policy in Afghanistan as "a political submission'' that should be thrown out of court.

Government counsel J. Sanderson Graham told the Federal Court of Canada on Wednesday there's no evidence to support the case mounted by human rights groups.

If successful, the motion to strike the application for review would derail the case before the parties get to the heart of the matter.

Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association contend a December 2005 transfer arrangement between Canada and Afghanistan lacks adequate safeguards to prevent torture of prisoners.

Allegations have persisted since April that some prisoners taken by the Canadian military were mistreated after being handed over to the Afghan government.

The government confirmed in May there had been accusations of abuse in six individual cases, and that Canada was looking into the complaints.

Ottawa has renegotiated the 2005 agreement with Kabul to allow Canadian officials to check up on the detainees following their transfer.

Graham said the rights groups have not produced specific evidence showing anyone has actually been abused. They cannot rely upon assumptions for which there is no proof, he said.

In a response filed with the court, Amnesty International and the Civil Liberties Association say such specifics are unnecessary. They note that in deportation and extradition cases the Federal Court has simply demanded evidence that there is a serious risk of torture in the destination country.

"The standard of proof in such matters cannot and must not be too onerous.''

The human rights groups say reports of widespread of abuse in Afghanistan mean that handing detainees over to local authorities exposes them to substantial risk of torture, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights.
More on link

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sounds like they had their bluff called. If their moral indignation is still slighted, they'll have to pull out their own wallet now. If that's the route they go, it should take years......and lots and lots of their money, only to prove their bias as baseless.

 

[GAP]

+1

Their case is pretty vague.....that's like saying that somewhere in the world people eat dogs, therefore we should have a law against eating dogs...........(they taste good)

 

[GAP]

Feds dismiss latest report on detainee abuse
Updated Mon. Oct. 29 2007 5:28 PM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The federal government is dismissing an incendiary newspaper report about the continued abuse of detainees in Afghanistan.

Prisoners at an Afghan jail in Kandahar are being bashed with bricks, having their fingernails ripped out, getting electrocuted, being forced to stand up without sleeping and are whipped with electric cables, Montreal La Presse reports.

The newspaper cites interviews with three prisoners and independent sources like a spokesman for the Afghan Human Rights Commission and a prison boss.

The Conservative government in Ottawa responded to similar reports last spring by saying it had a new a deal to monitor detainees.

On Monday, the government responded to the latest report by dismissing it as Taliban propaganda.

"We do expect these kinds of allegations from the Taliban,'' said Tory House leader Peter Van Loan.

"It is their standard operating procedure to engage in these kinds of accusations.''

But Montreal La Presse painted a different portrait after a recent visit to a Kandahar prison.

A spokesman for the Afghan Human Rights Commission is quoted as saying that about a third of prisoners are still being tortured by Afghanistan's secret service before they are taken to prison.

"The Canadians give us a sealed envelope with the names of the prisoners. The problem is that list never corresponds to the one compiled by the secret service,'' said commission spokesman Shamuldin Tanwir.
More on link

 

[GAP]

Ottawa overruled on Afghan detainees
Charter challenge can proceed, court says
DANIEL LEBLANC From Tuesday's Globe and Mail November 6, 2007 at 3:21 AM EST
Article Link

OTTAWA — The Harper government failed in its first attempt to quash legal efforts by human-rights groups to halt the transfer of detainees to local authorities in Afghanistan.

In a ruling Monday, the Federal Court rejected Ottawa's argument that a beefed-up deal with the Afghans last May provided detainees all necessary protections against torture.

Madam Justice Anne Mactavish affirmed that Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association have the right to fight the matter on behalf of Afghan detainees, who have little or no access to Canadian courts.

The two groups launched a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms earlier this year against the transfer policy. They are seeking an injunction to prevent any more prisoners from being handed over to the Afghans.
More on link

 

[ArmyRick]

Fine. I guess we will build our "guantonamo bay" facility up some where in Baffin Island. After all, the CF can guarantee we can provide humane treatment.

 

[GAP]

Fine. I guess we will build our "guantonamo bay" facility up some where in Baffin Island. After all, the CF can guarantee we can provide humane treatment.

Well, since the poor polar bears go hungry from spring to fall, we will nourishing a natural resource.....let the evironmentalist slam us for that!!