Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[observor 69]

Looks like we aren't the only ones having this problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/world/asia/07bagram.html

January 7, 2008
Foiling U.S. Plan, Prison Expands in Afghanistan
By TIM GOLDEN
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON — As the Bush administration struggles for a way to close the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a similar effort to scale down a larger and more secretive American detention center in Afghanistan has been beset by political, legal and security problems, officials say.

The American detention center, established at the Bagram military base as a temporary screening site after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, is now teeming with some 630 prisoners — more than twice the 275 being held at Guantánamo.

The administration has spent nearly three years and more than $30 million on a plan to transfer Afghan prisoners held by the United States to a refurbished high-security detention center run by the Afghan military outside Kabul.

But almost a year after the Afghan detention center opened, American officials say it can accommodate only about half the prisoners they once planned to put there. As a result, the makeshift American site at Bagram will probably continue to operate with hundreds of detainees for the foreseeable future, the officials said.

More at link

 

[GAP]

Lawyers say applying Charter rights in Afghanistan would violate sovereignty
Article Link

OTTAWA - Federal lawyers argued the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't follow the flag and apply to Afghan war prisoners turned over to local authorities by Canadian troops.

Doing so, said federal attorney J. Sanderson Graham, could create a legal "patchwork" in which prisoners turned over to Afghan officials by the Canadian military enjoyed Charter rights while prisoners held by other countries' armed forces didn't.

And Brian Evernden, another government lawyer, said Canada would be violating Afghanistan's sovereignty by enforcing the Charter in the war-torn country.

At issue during Friday's marathon day in court was which laws - Canadian or international - govern the detention and transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities.

Lawyers for a pair of human-rights groups are fighting for Charter rights to apply to interactions between Canadian troops and their prisoners, even in foreign countries.

But the attorneys for Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association can't just "pick and choose" when and where the Charter applies, Evernden said.

"My friend is not in a position where he can pick and choose the Charter rights at issue," he said. "That is, if good things happen, the Charter does not apply, and if bad things happen, the Charter does apply."
More on link

 

[a_majoor]

More interesting stuff to sort out.

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/01/so-where-does-all-this-leave-us-on.html

Saturday, January 26, 2008
So Where Does All This Leave Us On Afghanistan?

There are countless questions yet to be answered, but in the aftermath of the revelations of the past two days, there are some interesting things to note. The first is the political opportunism of Stephane Dion, who sees a potential weakness in the Harper government, and has used this time to accuse the government of "lying". There's every indication that Stephane Dion might be right, as the December 6 decision to halt detainee transfers was likely handed down to General Rick Hillier, who would inform Peter MacKay as a matter of procedure. There's further evidence that Peter MacKay knows perfectly well what's going on, as shown in an interview last night:

    "I'm not going to do anything that's going to endanger the lives of Canadian Forces personnel or Afghans involved in this operation," he said. "If [Mr. Dion] wants to be irresponsible and talk about the briefing he received, that's a decision for him."

Regardless, we haven't heard all of the facts yet, and I'm not going to make any snap judgments until we have. Having said that, it's interesting to note that NATO is also curious as to what is going on, having not been notified of the procedural change. For those who think it's inappropriate for ordinary Canadians to know what's going on in Afghanistan, perhaps the central military command might be one you would tell that to at the very least:

    Dion's disclosure came as the Afghan detainee affair rippled overseas to NATO headquarters, where Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has asked Canada to explain its Nov. 6 decision to quietly suspend handing over detainees captured by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan government.

    That detainee policy shift - publicly disclosed this week in a Justice Department letter - appears to contravene NATO's guidelines that Afghan detainees must be transferred within 96 hours.

In light of this fact, along with possible contraventions of the Geneva Convention, we should at least be taking this more seriously than we are. NATO itself has said that the policy developed for detainee transfers was very clearly developed with the understanding that Afghanistan is a sovereign nation in which Canada is an invited guest. Canada would therefore not have NATO authorization to change a policy in separate detention systems.

Of course this also creates some concern about the future of the mission, and the integral support that is necessary from the Liberal Party in order to extend it beyond February of 2009. And since Stephane Dion has known about this for two weeks, it comes then as a bit of a surprise that Stephane Dion told reporters that he was "open to debate" on Afghanistan and the Manley Panel Report. Since Stephane Dion was already aware of an issue which he is now using to question the ability of the Conservatives to govern, was it disingenuous of him to suggest that the Liberals would be willing to debate the merits of working with the Conservatives toward a mission extension? It seems even Stephen Harper is aware of that need, as Victor Wong reported yesterday:

    Interesting comments on the Manley Report — it was the one item on the agenda where he didn’t attack the Liberals, congratulating them instead on starting the mission and taking it seriously. He also praised the Report, saying everyone should read it. While not actually endorsing its findings, I think it’s a signal that he’s willing to collaborate with the Liberals pro-stay MPs to implement the Report recommendations. It’s something to keep a watch on.

What we do know is that the Manley Report helped to educate many Canadians on the importance of extending the Afghan mission, as evidence from a new Ipsos Reid poll released on Friday. The number of Canadians who now want to withdraw from Afghanistan has dropped to 37%, with 45% believing we should stay under a more "supportive" role such as training Army and police officers.

The Torch today offers up what has come to define the problem with the Afghan mission: communication. Citing the same Ipsos Reid poll, The Torch suggests the increase in support for mission is reflective in an increase in communication. And that deficiency has been of utmost clarity in this Conservative government, culminating now in the recent detainee issue. It could be suggested that either a cabinet war committee, or a civilian adviser could oversee and ensure Canada's involvement in this mission and a greater scrutiny from the public eye:

    Canadians can understand tactical considerations or operational security as long as they are used judiciously and correctly. Blanket policy directives serve as nothing more than band-aids on an open political wound. We do the Canadian military a great injustice when we allow political parties of any stripe to use them for their partisan ends.

Posted by Raphael Alexander at 11:37 AM 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Enough said:

Government out of the loop on detainees? Give me a break
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD 
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20080126/BLATCHFORD26

Oh, please: The Stephen Harper government didn't know that the Canadian military had stopped handing over Afghan detainees last fall, after Canadian monitors found what they called a credible allegation of torture?

This claim, made Thursday night by the Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, was being hastily retracted by Ms. Buckler less than 24 hours later.

"I should not have said what I said to you," she told The Globe and Mail's Campbell Clark yesterday. "I misspoke, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of that." Then she refused to say whether she "misspoke" because she said something she shouldn't have or because she said something that was wrong, and declined further comment. And she - madness! -- is the PM's communications director.

Knock me down with a feather: Ms. Buckler misspeaks, slurs the Canadian Forces and gives credence to all those who were already, as Mike Duffy noted Thursday on CTV NewsNet, pointing the finger of blame at Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier and what? She gets to say, albeit in a magnificently unhelpful way, "Oops"?

Off with her head...

Yet what is far more interesting than the duplicitous double-speak coming from this government is what it reveals both about its control-freak mentality (that if its first instinct is to say nothing, its second is to blame someone outside the circle of wagons, often the military) and the troubling, giddy eagerness with which the claim was sucked into the 24-7 media machine and spun out virtually unaltered for hours at a stretch...

...with Gen. Hillier in the air Thursday when this story broke - he was en route to resume the rare holiday he had already interrupted to return to Ottawa to discuss the Manley report, apparently with the PM and cabinet - there was in his absence no one willing or able to risk disputing Ms. Buckler's now-discredited allegation that the Canadian Forces had kept the government in the dark.

A second factor, I think, is that every story now, whether it is about Paris Hilton or the mission to Afghanistan, is subjected to the same unquestioning hyperbole. We in the press seem to suffer somewhat from a version of what in badly behaved children is called oppositional defiance disorder; we mistrust our own institutions such that we are fully prepared to accept, at least for story purposes, that the Canadian military would try to keep the government, which soldiers know better than anyone else is properly its master, out of the loop...

There's a nice post on the whole "detainee" question at Barrel Strength:
http://www.barrelstrength.com/2008/01/26/when-semantics-attack/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[TCBF]

This We All Know To Be True: 

The more inconvenient taking prisoners becomes, the less prisoners will be taken.

 

[FSTO]

I don't know if this is op sec or not but how many suspects/pirates/taliban/mercs/whatever the flavour of the week is with the media/politicos have the folks in A-stan caught since the "new" policy was put in place? 1, 10, 100? Who knows and in the end who cares. My Army brethren have done a bang-up job of everything they have been asked to do and more. All this in-spite of the cornucopia of Monday morning generals that we have in Canada. It is enough to make you weep that these clowns (PMO office, DFAIT, Liberal, NDP, CBC, CTV, Sun Media, Rabble.ca, Blue Lemons, etc.) question, dissect, criticize, pick apart, grumble, praise EVERY GD THING THEY DO. And all with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
JHC, the armchairs were up in arms because we took prisoners, they were up in arms because we didn't take prisoners, they'll soon be up in arms because the John Howard Society isn't in theatre to make sure the prisoners rights aren't violated!

Enough already, put the mission to a vote in Parliament, make a goddamn decision to stay or go and be done with it.

Rant over

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit more to feed the flames - highlights mine.  Is it just me, or is an elected official here happy to let the MILITARY look like they make the final decisions on this one?  As opposed to those we elected to govern saying, "the buck eventually stops with us"?  Also, I hope nobody is using OPSEC as an excuse for not considering the policy question closely enough at the highest levels.  Shared with the usual disclaimer....

MacKay looks for improved conditions
MURRAY BREWSTER, Canadian Press, via Halifax Chronicle Herald, 27 Jan 08
Article link

OTTAWA — Canada will resume handing over captured Taliban fighters to Afghan authorities as soon as the army is confident there is no risk of torture, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Saturday.

The agreement signed with President Hamid Karzai’s government last May will be honoured, MacKay insisted at the end of a closed-door strategy session.

The handovers will recommence once "we see there are improvements. . . in the Afghan prison," he told reporters.

But MacKay was adamant that military commanders on the ground will make the determination as to whether conditions in Afghan jails are good enough to allow for transfers.

He threw a blanket of operational security around what criteria field commanders will use to make their decision.

"We are not going to give the Taliban our playbook," he said. "We are not going to discuss the things we are doing operationally."

His comments will likely steel the determination of human-rights activists, who’ve been fighting in Federal Court to end the practice once and for all.

Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association have fought a protracted legal battle, arguing that Canada is in danger of violating human rights law when it delivers prisoners into the hands of possible torture.

Government lawyers tried last week to have the case thrown out, arguing the transfers had been suspended, but human-rights groups countered that the handovers could resume at any time.

The international agreement governing the reconstruction of Afghanistan estimates it will be 2010 before that country’s prison system is in good enough shape to be considered free of possible abuse.

"I don’t think Canada or the Canadian Forces can be confident for a few years that that country will have the capacity to safely manage prisoners," said Paul Champ, the lawyer for Amnesty.

 

[sgf]

all this just re enforces my belief that there is no political party in this country that truly cares one iota about the Canadian Military. Present day the miltiary is being used as a pawn to obtain votes. I dont know whats worse being neglected and ignored as it was for years or this.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"I don’t think Canada or the Canadian Forces can be confident for a few years that that country will have the capacity to safely manage prisoners," said Paul Champ, the lawyer for Amnesty.

So what?  If we leave, the Afghans will manage their own prisoners.  They may never have the "capacity to safely manage prisoners" in the manner desired by us.  We do not have a duty to do everything the Afghans can't or won't do just because we're there.  The Afghans are not collectively children from whom privileges and responsibilites must be taken while the adults are in the room.

 

[sgf]

if nothing then is going to change for the better for the people of Afghanistan, is NATO there then simply to rid the country of the Taliban?

 

[Reccesoldier]

if nothing then is going to change for the better for the people of Afghanistan, is NATO there then simply to rid the country of the Taliban?

sgf, Amnesty and their Ilk are utopians of the highest order.  Afghanistan could be run by angels and led by Mother Terresa from heaven and they would be bemoaning the lack of Afghan involvement in the government and cursing the christian crusaders. :

 

[GAP]

if nothing then is going to change for the better for the people of Afghanistan, is NATO there then simply to rid the country of the Taliban?

Are you just twigging on that....NOTHING else happens until security happens....even in dreams.

 

[observor 69]

Enough said:

Government out of the loop on detainees? Give me a break
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD 
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20080126/BLATCHFORD26

Mark
Ottawa

And;

"The result in this case was that with Gen. Hillier in the air Thursday when this story broke - he was en route to resume the rare holiday he had already interrupted to return to Ottawa to discuss the Manley report, apparently with the PM and cabinet - there was in his absence no one willing or able to risk disputing Ms. Buckler's now-discredited allegation that the Canadian Forces had kept the government in the dark."

So no one short of Gen.Hillier found it prudent  to go up against Ms.Buckler. 

 

[TCBF]

You have to marvel at the genius of NOT sacking Ms Buckler immediately.  Now that her 'lack of moral fibre' is evident, any future PR flops - her fault or not - will be explained away in back rooms and unatributable quotes as "poor girl was always out of her ethical league, but the boss wanted to give her a chance" or "wanted the last bit to blow over so she could at least leave town on a high note.." etc.

Brilliant.  Absolutely brilliant: she just volunteered to be a fall-girl.

 

[GAP]

You have to marvel at the genius of NOT sacking Ms Buckler immediately.   Now that her 'lack of moral fibre' is evident, any future PR flops - her fault or not - will be explained away in back rooms and unattributable quotes as "poor girl was always out of her ethical league, but the boss wanted to give her a chance" or "wanted the last bit to blow over so she could at least leave town on a high note.." etc.

Brilliant.  Absolutely brilliant: she just volunteered to be a fall-girl.

Not necessarily. The liberal stategist of "beer and popcorn" fame is still very active.

 

[stealthylizard]

What happened to the detainees when Paul Martin was the PM?  Or did this whole issue only occur after Harper was elected, or is this just more hypocrisy?

 

[sgf]

Its a disgrace that this happened under any Canadian PM.. doesnt matter if it was a liberal or conservative one.

 

[MG34]

Blah blah blah, who really gives a damn about some Taliban prisoners, hand them over or hold them ourselves to eventually hand them over makes no difference,either way they are out of the fight. They are terrorists and not subjected to any protection, the fact that we choose to offer it should be the discussion ender as far as the government s concerned.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Blah blah blah, who really gives a damn about some Taliban prisoners, hand them over or hold them ourselves to eventually hand them over makes no difference,either way they are out of the fight. They are terrorists and not subjected to any protection, the fact that we choose to offer it should be the discussion ender as far as the government s concerned.

The fact is, as tough and cool as this sounds we as a society are judged not by how we treat those we deem worthy but by how we treat those who are categorically UNWORTHY.

 

[sgf]

Blah blah blah, who really gives a damn about some Taliban prisoners, hand them over or hold them ourselves to eventually hand them over makes no difference,either way they are out of the fight. They are terrorists and not subjected to any protection, the fact that we choose to offer it should be the discussion ender as far as the government s concerned.

wow