- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
According to this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, Peter Tinsley, Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, has adjourned his hearings for a while, until courts deal weith the government’s motions:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/security-blanket-covers-key-evidence-at-torture-probe/article1315612/
In about two months Mr. Tinsely’s term as Chair of the MPCC will expire and the hearings may have to be delayed even further while a new Chair is appointed and brought up to speed.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/security-blanket-covers-key-evidence-at-torture-probe/article1315612/
Security blanket covers key evidence at torture probe
Military watchdog adjourns hearing into treatment of Afghan detainees after government lawyers question scope of investigation
Murray Brewster
Gatineau, Que.
The Canadian Press
Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009
A military watchdog has adjourned public hearings into the alleged torture of Afghan prisoners for a week while lawyers battle over the scope of its investigation.
The chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, Peter Tinsley, stopped the hearings into complaints filed by two human-rights groups hours after they began Wednesday.
He said he would rule next week on whether the hearings would continue while he appeals the court-ordered restrictions.
The probe is looking into what military police in Kandahar knew – or should have known – about the possible abuse of prisoners Canadian soldiers handed over to Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service for interrogation.
Justice Department lawyers argued before the commission Wednesday that public hearings should be suspended until the courts ultimately decide the scope of the investigation.
It would mean a two-month delay, said Alain Prefontaine, the lead government lawyer on the case.
“I was hopeful that when the Federal Court ruled on the proper corners of this inquiry that we'd be able to move things along more quickly,” he said during a break in the hearings.
But with an appeal in the offing and the possibility a higher court could change the boundaries of the investigation, an adjournment would be the only fair solution, he said.
Beyond the government's plea to suspend the hearings, a lawyer for the former head of military police also asked for a delay.
Graeme Smith/The Globe and Mail
A suspected Taliban fighter sits inside the national-security wing of Sarpoza prison in Kandahar in April of 2007.
The lawyer for retired navy captain Steve Moore, who was until last June the military's Provost Marshal, told the inquiry the federal government has given him access to some documents needed in his client's defence.
But using national security provisions, federal lawyers have barred the police commission from seeing the documents until they have been censored for possible security violations.
Mr. Prefontaine said the government is simply trying to uphold the law and is following the rules for disclosure of sensitive information.
Both he and Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday there is no attempt to obstruct the commission.
In addition, a written statement filed by a former Canadian diplomat, with information about the possible torture of Afghan prisoners, has been sealed on the grounds of national security.
Lawyers for the commission haven't been allowed to read the document filed by Richard Colvin, who worked at Canada's provincial reconstruction base in Kandahar in 2006.
He was there when Canadian troops first began handing over captured Taliban fighters to Afghan authorities and signalled to the commission that he had information on what military police knew about alleged torture in Afghan prisons.
But federal lawyers have tried to have him removed from a witness list and said information contained in his statement must be vetted under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which prohibits the release of national security information and punishes those who don't comply with up to five years in prison.
Mr. Prefontaine said he doesn't know what Mr. Colvin's statement contains – or what information the former diplomat may possess, but defended trying to strike him from the witness list.
In about two months Mr. Tinsely’s term as Chair of the MPCC will expire and the hearings may have to be delayed even further while a new Chair is appointed and brought up to speed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
[/quote]
Well isn't that just too damn bad.
And on a more serious note, Capt S. Moore Navy Provost Marshal, whats the matter, either the Navy doesn't have enough Ships or the Military Police doesn't have enough Senior Officers ?
And to all the Taliban Prisoners at the Sarpoze Prison, "HAVE A NICE DAY".
Cheers.
Well isn't that just too damn bad.
And on a more serious note, Capt S. Moore Navy Provost Marshal, whats the matter, either the Navy doesn't have enough Ships or the Military Police doesn't have enough Senior Officers ?
And to all the Taliban Prisoners at the Sarpoze Prison, "HAVE A NICE DAY".
Cheers.
Afghan detainee curse could claim MacKay
John Ivison, National Post
Article Link
Peter MacKay should tread lightly or the curse of the Afghan detainees will claim yet another victim.
Allegations of abuse of detainees handed over by Canadian troops in Afghanistan have already had a career-limiting impact on two defence ministers. Now they have come back to haunt the present holder of that office.
Mr. MacKay has been winning good reviews for the no-nonsense way he has handled the Defence portfolio. It helps that the government is spending billions on military procurement but, beyond that, Mr. MacKay is deemed well-suited to a job he appears to enjoy.
His reputation took a hit when he won the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party by agreeing not to merge with Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance, only to later renege on that pledge. But his solid performances at Foreign Affairs and National Defence means he is now considered a real contender to succeed Mr. Harper, if he chooses to enter an eventual leadership race.
But all that good work would be for nothing if the detainee issue wreaks its usual havoc. Back in 2002, Mr. MacKay's Liberal predecessor, now Senator Art Eggleton, was involved in a detainee-related controversy over what he knew and when he knew about the transfer of Taliban fighters. He was eventually cleared of deliberately covering up the facts but when he was later involved in an unrelated incident involving a former girlfriend, he was cut loose by Jean Chretien. Those close to the controversy were in no doubt that the damage had been done by the detainee issue.
Another former defence minister brought low by detainees was Gordon O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor was asked in the House of Commons to open up the Liberal-negotiated prisoner transfer agreement with the Afghan government to ensure detainees were treated fairly. He refused, saying there was no need to do so because the Red Cross monitored the fate of prisoners after their transfer -- a position considerably undermined when it was contradicted by ... er, the Red Cross. The minister was forced to apologize for misleading the House and was later moved to the National Revenue portfolio.
Again, no one was in any doubt that the curse of the detainees had struck again.
More on link
John Ivison, National Post
Article Link
Peter MacKay should tread lightly or the curse of the Afghan detainees will claim yet another victim.
Allegations of abuse of detainees handed over by Canadian troops in Afghanistan have already had a career-limiting impact on two defence ministers. Now they have come back to haunt the present holder of that office.
Mr. MacKay has been winning good reviews for the no-nonsense way he has handled the Defence portfolio. It helps that the government is spending billions on military procurement but, beyond that, Mr. MacKay is deemed well-suited to a job he appears to enjoy.
His reputation took a hit when he won the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party by agreeing not to merge with Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance, only to later renege on that pledge. But his solid performances at Foreign Affairs and National Defence means he is now considered a real contender to succeed Mr. Harper, if he chooses to enter an eventual leadership race.
But all that good work would be for nothing if the detainee issue wreaks its usual havoc. Back in 2002, Mr. MacKay's Liberal predecessor, now Senator Art Eggleton, was involved in a detainee-related controversy over what he knew and when he knew about the transfer of Taliban fighters. He was eventually cleared of deliberately covering up the facts but when he was later involved in an unrelated incident involving a former girlfriend, he was cut loose by Jean Chretien. Those close to the controversy were in no doubt that the damage had been done by the detainee issue.
Another former defence minister brought low by detainees was Gordon O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor was asked in the House of Commons to open up the Liberal-negotiated prisoner transfer agreement with the Afghan government to ensure detainees were treated fairly. He refused, saying there was no need to do so because the Red Cross monitored the fate of prisoners after their transfer -- a position considerably undermined when it was contradicted by ... er, the Red Cross. The minister was forced to apologize for misleading the House and was later moved to the National Revenue portfolio.
Again, no one was in any doubt that the curse of the detainees had struck again.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
GAP said:
I'm afraid the "Cure of the Afghan Detainees" is in the same league of the "May This House Be Safe From Tigers" prayer - it works because of the coincidence that wild tigers are quite rare in London and New York. (And, by the way, the story and the prayer predate Alexander King, circa 1960.) Must be a really slow opinion day.
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,292
- Points
- 940
MacKay denies knowing about Afghan torture
Article Link - CTV News
Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he wasn't aware of warnings authored by a Canadian diplomat that prisoners in Afghanistan faced the risk of being tortured if transferred to local authorities.
"I have not seen those reports in either my capacity as minister of National Defence or previously as minister of Foreign Affairs," he told The Canadian Press.
MacKay was responding to an affidavit that diplomat Richard Colvin filed to the Military Police Complaints Commission on Wednesday, which said that government officials knew of the risks because he personally warned them in writing in 2006.
Colvin -- who is now an intelligence officer with the Foreign Affairs department -- said in his written statement that he filed two reports in 2006 that examined potential problems with the handover of prisoners by the Canadian military to the local authorities.
"Judging these problems regarding Afghan detainees to be serious, imminent and alarming, I made investigations and detailed my findings formally in my reporting from the PRT," he wrote in the affidavit.
His statement contradicts earlier assurances by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other high-ranking officials that they had not received any credible reports from Canadian officials about prisoner abuse.
Cabinet ministers had also assured the public that the opposition was misled by Taliban propaganda, and that in fact, the government has not received a credible allegation of prisoner abuse.
That revelation has resulted in opposition calls for an official public inquiry into issue.
However, the Canadian government said that when the allegations came to light in the spring of 2007 that they had never received any prior warning about the risk of torture.
The content of the first report is still covered by national security. Colvin said the second report gave specific findings that "dealt with two issues, one of which concerned the risk of torture and/or actual torture of Afghan detainees."
But opposition MPs say the government may be hiding something.
"Peter Mackay and the prime minister must come forward and tell Canadians exactly what they knew, and when they knew it. That is the clearest, fastest, and most honest way to proceed," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris on Thursday.
The NDP is now calling for a public inquiry into the issue.
More on link
Article Link - CTV News
Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he wasn't aware of warnings authored by a Canadian diplomat that prisoners in Afghanistan faced the risk of being tortured if transferred to local authorities.
"I have not seen those reports in either my capacity as minister of National Defence or previously as minister of Foreign Affairs," he told The Canadian Press.
MacKay was responding to an affidavit that diplomat Richard Colvin filed to the Military Police Complaints Commission on Wednesday, which said that government officials knew of the risks because he personally warned them in writing in 2006.
Colvin -- who is now an intelligence officer with the Foreign Affairs department -- said in his written statement that he filed two reports in 2006 that examined potential problems with the handover of prisoners by the Canadian military to the local authorities.
"Judging these problems regarding Afghan detainees to be serious, imminent and alarming, I made investigations and detailed my findings formally in my reporting from the PRT," he wrote in the affidavit.
His statement contradicts earlier assurances by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other high-ranking officials that they had not received any credible reports from Canadian officials about prisoner abuse.
Cabinet ministers had also assured the public that the opposition was misled by Taliban propaganda, and that in fact, the government has not received a credible allegation of prisoner abuse.
That revelation has resulted in opposition calls for an official public inquiry into issue.
However, the Canadian government said that when the allegations came to light in the spring of 2007 that they had never received any prior warning about the risk of torture.
The content of the first report is still covered by national security. Colvin said the second report gave specific findings that "dealt with two issues, one of which concerned the risk of torture and/or actual torture of Afghan detainees."
But opposition MPs say the government may be hiding something.
"Peter Mackay and the prime minister must come forward and tell Canadians exactly what they knew, and when they knew it. That is the clearest, fastest, and most honest way to proceed," said NDP defence critic Jack Harris on Thursday.
The NDP is now calling for a public inquiry into the issue.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting - note the difference between the CTV story headline:
"MacKay denies knowing about Afghan torture"
and the Canadian Press story headline:
"MacKay denies seeing Afghan torture warnings "
Also, this, from CanWest, on what the former Defence Minister said:
- edited to include O'Connor quote -
"MacKay denies knowing about Afghan torture"
and the Canadian Press story headline:
"MacKay denies seeing Afghan torture warnings "
Also, this, from CanWest, on what the former Defence Minister said:
- edited to include O'Connor quote -
National Post editorial board: When in Afghanistan...
Posted: October 16, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor
Editorial
Article Link
The Conservative government continues to face accusations that it is deliberately trying to sandbag an inquiry into when Canadian military police first knew they might be transferring Afghan prisoners to Afghan detention facilities where they might be tortured or made to suffer privations by other Afghans. The issue, at this point, is the period of time between May 2006, when Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin first warned of the possibility that Canadians were indirectly implicated in “serious” prisoner abuse by the sovereign government of Afghanistan, and May 2007, when the government agreed to strengthen procedures for following up on Canadian captives in Afghan custody.
Many of the news stories about this controversy are careful to mention that Canada is bound to comply with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners and victims of war. If it were the case that the totality of the Conventions applied, there might be good reason for the expectation of civilian oversight and deep investigation. But most of the provisions of the Conventions don’t apply directly to the war in Afghanistan, since it is not a conflict of “international character” under their terms. The full Conventions are relevant only by a sort of verbal game which turns them into a permanent, universal norm for wars featuring non-state actors.
This is part of a questionable trend in international law that began even before 9/11: Liberal critics generally would like to eliminate the distinction between our obligations to a traditional warring state and our obligations to insurgent and guerrilla groups. This includes groups such as the Taliban that use terror against civilians and themselves regard the Geneva code as ridiculous.
There are core rules that do apply to the Conventions’ contracting parties in absolutely all military conflicts: namely, that noncombatants and the wounded should not suffer murder or assault, should not be used as hostages, should not be gratuitously humiliated, should not be subject to summary execution, and must receive medical treatment and the necessities of life. But combatants healthy enough to be jailed instead of hospitalized — such as those Afghan prisoners at the root of the current controversy — aren’t entitled even to this second-hand protection. This fact makes the case for running roughshod over our own military and national security, in pursuit of the rights of those combatants, much weaker.
The fact is that Canada, as an invited participant in a foreign civil war on behalf of the sovereign power there, faces an intractable logical difficulty. We’re fighting for a backward culture that does not accept all of our ideas about human rights — against an even worse subculture that not only has the most attenuated notions of human rights conceivable, but is a standing threat to the peace of the whole world. In such an environment, it is inevitable that Canadian soldiers will be complicit, if only indirectly, in procedures that do not meet our own rarefied due-process standards. Short of Canadians building their own prison and court system in Afghanistan, or sending every single detainee we catch to face Canadian criminal justice, Afghanistan’s dirty fight will always leave some kind of black mark on those Canadians who are fighting it.
Our one message to the government’s liberal critics is that Canada may someday be involved in a war on this particular model that they actually favour, even if they don’t favour this one. Wars these days tend not to be fought in Belgium and Britain — but in places such as Darfur and Chechnya, where the concepts of human rights and due process are bad jokes. Do they want to make it impossible for us ever to do battle against the truly intolerable on behalf of the merely questionable?
That is the question that non-government intervenors and academics increasingly seem to be raising: not whether the Canadian military should have been in Afghanistan, but whether it can ever go anywhere and still conform to their notions of right conduct.
In matters of human rights overseas, let us not permit the great to become the enemy of the good.
National Post
end of article
Posted: October 16, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor
Editorial
Article Link
The Conservative government continues to face accusations that it is deliberately trying to sandbag an inquiry into when Canadian military police first knew they might be transferring Afghan prisoners to Afghan detention facilities where they might be tortured or made to suffer privations by other Afghans. The issue, at this point, is the period of time between May 2006, when Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin first warned of the possibility that Canadians were indirectly implicated in “serious” prisoner abuse by the sovereign government of Afghanistan, and May 2007, when the government agreed to strengthen procedures for following up on Canadian captives in Afghan custody.
Many of the news stories about this controversy are careful to mention that Canada is bound to comply with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners and victims of war. If it were the case that the totality of the Conventions applied, there might be good reason for the expectation of civilian oversight and deep investigation. But most of the provisions of the Conventions don’t apply directly to the war in Afghanistan, since it is not a conflict of “international character” under their terms. The full Conventions are relevant only by a sort of verbal game which turns them into a permanent, universal norm for wars featuring non-state actors.
This is part of a questionable trend in international law that began even before 9/11: Liberal critics generally would like to eliminate the distinction between our obligations to a traditional warring state and our obligations to insurgent and guerrilla groups. This includes groups such as the Taliban that use terror against civilians and themselves regard the Geneva code as ridiculous.
There are core rules that do apply to the Conventions’ contracting parties in absolutely all military conflicts: namely, that noncombatants and the wounded should not suffer murder or assault, should not be used as hostages, should not be gratuitously humiliated, should not be subject to summary execution, and must receive medical treatment and the necessities of life. But combatants healthy enough to be jailed instead of hospitalized — such as those Afghan prisoners at the root of the current controversy — aren’t entitled even to this second-hand protection. This fact makes the case for running roughshod over our own military and national security, in pursuit of the rights of those combatants, much weaker.
The fact is that Canada, as an invited participant in a foreign civil war on behalf of the sovereign power there, faces an intractable logical difficulty. We’re fighting for a backward culture that does not accept all of our ideas about human rights — against an even worse subculture that not only has the most attenuated notions of human rights conceivable, but is a standing threat to the peace of the whole world. In such an environment, it is inevitable that Canadian soldiers will be complicit, if only indirectly, in procedures that do not meet our own rarefied due-process standards. Short of Canadians building their own prison and court system in Afghanistan, or sending every single detainee we catch to face Canadian criminal justice, Afghanistan’s dirty fight will always leave some kind of black mark on those Canadians who are fighting it.
Our one message to the government’s liberal critics is that Canada may someday be involved in a war on this particular model that they actually favour, even if they don’t favour this one. Wars these days tend not to be fought in Belgium and Britain — but in places such as Darfur and Chechnya, where the concepts of human rights and due process are bad jokes. Do they want to make it impossible for us ever to do battle against the truly intolerable on behalf of the merely questionable?
That is the question that non-government intervenors and academics increasingly seem to be raising: not whether the Canadian military should have been in Afghanistan, but whether it can ever go anywhere and still conform to their notions of right conduct.
In matters of human rights overseas, let us not permit the great to become the enemy of the good.
National Post
end of article
- Reaction score
- 2,845
- Points
- 940
A well-considered editorial.GAP said:
However I doubt if any opposition parliamentarians are thinking so philosophically. All that matters is grasping for any anti-ruling party sound bites.
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting how this is coming out at about the same time as advance coverage of Hillier's new book - makes one wonder the motives of the "senior sources within the federal government and the Canadian military"....
Top brass knew about torture allegations: gov't and military sources
Peter Harris and Norma Greenaway, Global News, 19 Oct 09
Article link
MacKay probes fate of Afghan torture warnings
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 19 Oct 09
Article link
Top brass knew about torture allegations: gov't and military sources
Peter Harris and Norma Greenaway, Global News, 19 Oct 09
Article link
MacKay probes fate of Afghan torture warnings
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 19 Oct 09
Article link
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
...according to Minister MacKay, speaking during Question Period in the House of Commons yesterday (1st question and 2nd question on issue), with an interesting new tidbit in yellow:
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
This from CP:
It also appears, if you believe these Tweets, that Mr. D. got his wrist slapped for Twittering to this effect - nothing left on UD's Twitter site on the issue as of this posting.
It also appears, if you believe these Tweets, that Mr. D. got his wrist slapped for Twittering to this effect - nothing left on UD's Twitter site on the issue as of this posting.
- Reaction score
- 4,261
- Points
- 1,260
Highlights from the Globe & Mail:
Also, compare what the Minister said in Question Period Monday (links to Hansard) ....
Latest from Tuesday's Hansard for Question Period here and here.
- edited to add 20 Oct 09 Hansard links -
Also, compare what the Minister said in Question Period Monday (links to Hansard) ....
.... to what the Globe said he said outside the house:
Latest from Tuesday's Hansard for Question Period here and here.
- edited to add 20 Oct 09 Hansard links -
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Hillier's comments are, potentially, very damaging.
First: it is, as Minister MacKay says, very normal that the minister sees only a very few of the thousands of documents that arrive in his/her office suites each week - staff deal with the overwhelming majority of issues: routine ones and, often, quite toxic ones - especially where ministers may not "want" to be too well informed.
Second: Gen. Hillier would, almost certainly, have kept his colleague, the Deputy Minister of National Defence, appraised of this issue. They, jointly, would have, almost equally certainly, have kept the Privy Council Office "in the loop."
But: it does not necessarily follow that either the MND or the PMO would have been informed - for any number of good and valid reasons, including the fact that the information had been lodged with staffs. It's called passing the buck and generals do it just as well as civil servants.
I would be surprised if someone as savvy as Gen. Hillier took this kind of information to the PMO, which is a very political place. To do so, and to be found out,could be construed would be evidence of the CDS being politically partisan. Hillier ought to have been way to smart to do that.
I anticipate yet another Liberal demand for yet another public inquiry; I doubt much will happen because I think the ongoing MPPCC probe will be shackled and new ones will be avoided; I also expect that Hillier, Colvin and many others will be called to testify by one or more HoC Committees. I also expect much heat and little light. Advice to ministers is protected - even from parliamentary committees.
Edit: typo
First: it is, as Minister MacKay says, very normal that the minister sees only a very few of the thousands of documents that arrive in his/her office suites each week - staff deal with the overwhelming majority of issues: routine ones and, often, quite toxic ones - especially where ministers may not "want" to be too well informed.
Second: Gen. Hillier would, almost certainly, have kept his colleague, the Deputy Minister of National Defence, appraised of this issue. They, jointly, would have, almost equally certainly, have kept the Privy Council Office "in the loop."
But: it does not necessarily follow that either the MND or the PMO would have been informed - for any number of good and valid reasons, including the fact that the information had been lodged with staffs. It's called passing the buck and generals do it just as well as civil servants.
I would be surprised if someone as savvy as Gen. Hillier took this kind of information to the PMO, which is a very political place. To do so, and to be found out,
I anticipate yet another Liberal demand for yet another public inquiry; I doubt much will happen because I think the ongoing MPPCC probe will be shackled and new ones will be avoided; I also expect that Hillier, Colvin and many others will be called to testify by one or more HoC Committees. I also expect much heat and little light. Advice to ministers is protected - even from parliamentary committees.
Edit: typo
