Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Globe & Mail:

After two days of probing, Canada’s top soldier is outright rejecting one of several troubling allegations levelled by a former military interpreter this week -- saying his troops did not unlawfully shoot an unarmed Afghan.

Ahmadshah Malgarai told a Commons committee on April 14 that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan deliberately handed over detainees to torture and also once shot an unarmed Afghan in the back of the head.

(....)

Gen. Natynczyk said (the incident in question) occurred during a Canadian-led attack on the night of June 18 and the morning of June 19 on a compound linked to bomb-making insurgents.

“The compound was suspected to be a staging area for rocket attacks against Kandahar airfield as well as [bomb] attacks against Canadian and coalition soldiers,” he wrote to Afghanistan committee chair Kevin Sorenson.

“During the mission an armed individual posed a direct and imminent threat to Canadian Forces soldiers as they entered the compound,” the general wrote.

“A shooter who was providing support to the operation identified the individual and assessed that he was a threat and shot the individual,” he said.

“The acts of the shooter were an appropriate application of the rules of engagement and saved the lives of a number of Canadian Forces members that night.” ....

Copy of CDS's letter obtained by G&M attached

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, from CanWest News:

Canada’s top soldier has denied allegations his troops shot and killed an unarmed teenager in the back of the head in Afghanistan and then tried to cover it up.

But a letter issued by Gen. Walter Natynczyk in response to recent testimony before a Commons committee looking into allegations of detainee abuse in Afghanistan has actually raised more questions than it answered, says the lawyer of the man who levelled the accusations.

Lawyer Amir Attaran slammed Natynczyk on Saturday, accusing him of ducking questions about the testimony of Ahmadshah Malgarai, a former military interpreter ....

:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afghan detainees: The lawyer couldn't produce the documents so he dug up a witness/Update: CDS' letter on alleged murder
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afghan-detainees-lawyer-couldnt-produce.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

CP story, with two good questions:

Canada's Afghan prisoner tally nearly double its allies'
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100418/afghan_prisoner_tally_100418/20100418?hub=TopStoriesV2

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Canada outstripped its NATO allies almost two-to-one in the number of prisoners it turned over to Afghan authorities in the first nine months of last year, figures prepared for the Afghan government show.

The statistics were compiled by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and made available to The Canadian Press. Ottawa does not release them...

The commission, which relies heavily on Canadian government funding and mentorship, says between January and the end of September 2009, it was notified that 267 suspected insurgents were transferred by Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark. The United States has its own separate system for dealing with captured Taliban.

Among NATO allies, the Canadian army was way out in front with 163 prisoners. [emphasis added] Britain followed with 93 confirmed transfers; the Netherlands 10 and Denmark 1.

Unlike those countries, who make these numbers publicly available, Ottawa refuses to release its figures [emphasis added], citing operational security and the safety of troops as the reason. Before the U.S. surge, the explanation was that giving away the number of captured with so small a Canadian force on the ground would help the Taliban track where their people might be.

The Canadian numbers, however, are available for the asking in this country...

NATO guidelines say prisoners must be transferred within 96 hours, but a source said the Canada's process is so involved and so rigorous that the deadline is often missed. The British also regularly miss the deadline for much the same reason...

By the way, for all those who claim CF members may be vulnerable to international war crimes charges for turning over detainees, what about the Brits and Dutch--not to mention how the Americans may have treated those they hold themselves?

Mark
Ott

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afghan detainees: Attaran vs. MacKenzie video--the professor and the general (ret'd) have at it on CTV's Power Play; Lew MacKenzie is mad as hell and almost can't take it anymore. You be the ref.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/april-19/#clip291214

Mr Attaran amongst other things accuses the Canadian Forces--not the government as a whole--of acting illegally in not releasing documents as ordered by the Commons (not "Parliament", pace the prof.). For more on that matter:

Afghan detainee docs: Crown privilege rules
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afghan-detainee-docs-crown-privilege.html

By the way, Mr Attaran in the clip, er, presents supercilious smarm superbly.  Plus a piece on Mr Malgarai himself:

Translator stands by testimony on Afghan teen's death
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100419/malgarai_allegations_100419/20100419?hub=TopStoriesV2

Other video:

CTV National News: Roger Smith on the allegations
A former military translator claims there was a cover-up of the fatal shooting of an Afghan teenager...
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/abuse-claims/#clip291367


CTV News Channel: Graeme Smith, Globe and Mail
Gen. Walt Natynczyk refuted the Afghan translator's serious accusations by issuing a summary of the events. But, the statement suggests there may be more to the story, says Graeme Smith.
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/abuse-claims/#clip290577

More on the detainee issue from Adrian MacNair:

Afghan Detainees Not On The Radar Of Afghans
http://unambig.com/afghan-detainees-not-on-the-radar-of-afghans/

Mark
Ottawa

Update: We are not alone (via Norman's Spectator):
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm

UK accused over Taliban torture risk when handing over insurgents
• Anti-war activivist seeks review over risk of torture
• Government accused of 'head in the sand' attitude
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/torture-risk-taliban-british-accused

Detainee-torture allegations spread to Britain
Human-rights groups in London seek judicial review of documents charging ‘first-hand evidence of systematic torture'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/detainee-torture-allegations-spread-to-britain/article1539932/

But for some reason the matter is no big political deal in the UK.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It’s spreading, but the source is the same, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/detainee-torture-allegations-spread-to-britain/article1539932/

Detainee-torture allegations spread to Britain
Human-rights groups in London seek judicial review of documents charging ‘first-hand evidence of systematic torture’

Doug Saunders

London

Apr. 20, 2010

Allegations that Afghan detainees were routinely handed over to Afghan authorities for torture – up to now a largely Canadian scandal – are poised to envelop fellow NATO countries with a London court case that claims Britain exposed hundreds of prisoners to abuse in similar circumstances.

A team of human-rights lawyers presented judges in a London court Monday with thousands of pages of documents it says provide detailed proof that Britain knowingly handed detainees to special prisons run by Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, the intelligence agency that is widely believed to use torture as a routine part of its interrogations.

“We’ve got first-hand evidence of systematic torture,” said Michael Fordham QC, the chief lawyer for the human-rights activists bringing the case against the British government. They are in court this week to seek a judicial review of their claims.

If proven, the case would show the British government and military in stark contravention of repeated guarantees that they would not allow prisoners to be mistreated. The lawyers are arguing that Britain broke European human-rights laws in Afghanistan.

Those allegations, which the British government rejects, are nearly identical to those facing the Harper government in Canada and cover a similar time period.

Afghanistan’s NDS is also at the centre of the Canadian scandal. Last week Richard Colvin, the diplomat whose efforts to inform the government of torture launched the scandal into the public eye, told Ottawa’s Military Police Complaints Commission that he had warned officials that “the NDS tortures people. That's what they do, so if we don't want detainees tortured we shouldn't give them to the NDS.”

The British case could yield evidence about Canada’s practices. In Ottawa, lawyers and opposition politicians are trying to get the government to declassify and release documents that might show that prisoners were handed to abusive authorities. In London, these documents have been assembled by the plaintiffs and the human-rights groups they represent, and the government is fighting in court to prevent them from being released.

It isn’t clear how much Gordon Brown’s government will allow to be released, although the judges said Monday that they hope to bring as much as possible to light.

Still, even the human-rights lawyers’ opening argument was not allowed to be released. The two-judge panel ruled that a heavily redacted version of the argument would be released later, possibly Tuesday.

The lawyers have assembled dossiers which they say prove torture in nine instances between July of 2006 and November of 2007, including electrocution, whipping, beating with cables, stress positions and sleep deprivation, but they say the rendition of suspects to the NDS was documented through to 2009. “We’ve got years of this practice,” Mr. Fordham said.

They have documented 410 detainees, all of them considered “suspected insurgents” by the military, who were transferred into the hands of special prisons controlled by the NDS. This, Mr. Fordham said, amounts to about two detainees a week who were knowingly handed into abusive conditions.

“Our documents relate to actors and persons who supported arrangements under which detainees were transferred for investigation – and that means interrogation – by the NDS.”

Of those detainees, 34 were handed by the British to an NDS prison in Kandahar, an area under the command of the Canadians.

When the Canadian case erupted last year, Mr. Colvin and others said that Canada had taken far less care than other NATO countries in ensuring that detainees were not exposed to abuse and torture. There were suggestions that Canada was not following the procedures and setting the sorts of guarantees that Britain and other countries fighting in the country’s war-torn south were using.

If this case is successful, it will change that perception, as the lawyers are arguing that Britain made specific and detailed guarantees that detainees would be protected and their transfers and captivity carefully monitored, but then allegedly failed to follow up on those promises on a repeated basis.

Allegations of British complicity in detainee torture were first raised by Amnesty International in a 2007 report, at around the same time that The Globe and Mail first reported that captured men were being handed by Canadian forces to the NDS and tortured.

The British government is contesting all the allegations. Its lawyers, representing Secretary of Defence Bob Ainsworth, will argue Tuesday that pre-trial detainees are subject to sufficiently robust safeguards to prevent torture and mistreatment.

It is important, indeed critical, to bear in mind that the allegations being investigated in Canada did not originate with e.g. Afghans or the Red Cross (ICRC) or Richard Colvin. They started with Canadian human rights activists who have a highly political anti-Western and anti-military agenda.

The aim is to use international law and ill-considered treaties to restrict the rights and capabilities of the West to protect its vital interests around the world. The campaign, supported, actively albeit in sublime ignorance by the media, is succeeding, brilliantly.

These human rights activists are part of the barbarian enemy force. I say barbarian because that’s what the “war” is all about. A “global war on terror” was, and remains a silly idea. Terror is a tactic, one we have used in my lifetime, not an enemy and everyone with an IQ  greater than the one the gods gave to green peppers understands that – which, evidently, excludes almost everyone inside the DC beltway. The “war” is for the modern, largely secular, sophisticated, law abiding, capitalist/free market and, broadly but not wholly, democratic lifestyle that 2 billion people in the world enjoy and to which another 4.5 billion earnestly aspire. That lifestyle is opposed by a few thousand leaders of about 100 million of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslim people. They, those leaders and their barbaric ideas are the enemy. Those who aim to restrict our ability to defend and promote our secular, democratic lifestyle are also the enemy.

The enemy is here, in Canada, armed with law books and broad, albeit apathetic, public ‘support.’

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no experience with public inquiries, save as a spectator, but I cannot believe that the best interests of the Government of Canada, which includes DND and the Canadian Forces, are being well served by M. Prefontaine - not, at least, if this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is even a bit accurate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-offensive-stalling-on-detainee-documents-stuns-inquiry/article1540390/

Ottawa’s ‘offensive’ stalling on detainee documents stuns inquiry
Afghan prisoner-transfer files ‘will be turned over to the counsel when they're good and ready,’ Justice Department tells Military Police Complaints Commission

Steven Chase

Ottawa — The Canadian Press

Tuesday, Apr. 20, 2010

The federal government appears to be stalling in the face of demands for records from a civilian-run watchdog’s probing Canada’s handling of Afghan prisoners.

A government lawyer today refused to even set a date for handing over a specific set of records requested by the Military Police Complaints Commission.

“The documents will be given to your counsel when they are good and ready,” Justice Department lawyer Alain Prefontaine told the complaint commission.

The tone of Mr. Prefontaine’s response prompted astonishment from Glenn Stannard, the acting chair of the commission.

“I find that to be close to offensive, not only to this panel but also to the public,” Mr. Stannard said. “The government of Canada can’t tell us how long it’s going to take to get the documents?”

It’s the latest in a long series of roadblocks that the Harper government has put in the way of the military police inquiry as it tries to investigate allegations that Canadians aided and abetted torture by knowingly handing over prisoners to abuse at the hands of Afghan officials.

The complaints commission has asked the government to release records for eight prisoners who alleged they were abused after being transferred from Canadian hands to Afghan’s notorious intelligence service.

Mr. Prefontaine said censors still have to review the documents to ensure they are scrubbed of information that could breach national security before they are released. This sparked a testy exchange between the government lawyer and the commission chair.

The Justice Department official refused several times to say when documents might be released, first saying this was a secret between him and the government of Canada. “That is not something I am at liberty to discuss with you. That is covered by the solicitor-client privilege.”

When Mr. Stannard asked for the name of someone in government who could come before the panel and give a date for the documents’ release, Mr. Prefontaine replied: “I do not perceive that it’s my obligation to answer that question.”

Mr. Prefontaine said numerous requests from the commission are making life difficult for government record keepers because they have to keep screening more of them as new demands are made. He said censors must take care to black out all the information that could help enemies of Canada assemble a bigger picture of vital secrets.

Commission lawyer Ron Lunau dismissed Ottawa’s excuse. “I don’t accept … that we are somehow to blame for the fact that today [Mr. Prefontaine] will sit here and tell the commission basically that it’s none of their business when these documents are going to be produced.”

The commission is investigating complaints from Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. These groups allege that military police did not properly investigate officers responsible for directing the transfer of prisoners to Afghan officials.

The Geneva Conventions make it a war crime to knowingly transfer prisoners to torture.

Were I Mr. Stannard I would have found Prefontaine’s remarks a whole lot more than just “close to offensive.” I would have administered the biggest, hardest procedural ***-kicking within my power.

Prefontaine is not helping his client, the Government of Canada, not where in matters, which is in the public’s eye, anyway. He may have done well enough at law school but he failed at growing up; he sounds like a puffed up, pompous little *** and, sadly, that’s the impression he creates of his client.


Edit: to correct the spelling of Mr. Stannard's name

 

[leroi]

Speaking as a concerned civilian Canadian only, as a person without legal, political or military expertise, this entire debacle is stomach-turning. It's like listening to someone rhythmically, relentlessly scraping their fingernails on a chalk board in a nightmare-without-end.

I absolutely don't believe AA (I'll use those initials to protect myself, as he's now creating a free speech chill  in Canada by very effectively threatening bloggers and newspapers who question his motives with lawsuits while he hypocritically whines about Canada's lack of transparency).

Thanks to AA, we can't have any reasonable debate in Canada about the end of the Afghanistan mission; about the CF's next mission or anything else. The detainee crap is upstaging everything else. When CF members return from Afghanistan to an apathetic Canada with sorrow, injuries, PTSD, etc., I'm going to lay part of the blame for that at AA's & PC's feet. I will accuse them of contributing to the ill- health of our CF members.

For the sake of the CF, I wish the government would just hand over all documents; but I believe there are actual times when to do so is not in a country's best interest.  I've read a bit of history, not nearly enough, but understand that some security information needs to be protected.

An aside,  below is a link from U of O where AA offers research scholarships. Are there any human rights lawyers on the forum? I wonder about the clause where it says "preference will be given to international students" with a weasel-worded following qualifier that inserts an element of ambiguity/gray area into the requirement.  It seems to me, that saying preference will be given to an international student is discriminatory.  On the other hand, I'm not a lawyer so what do I know; just a concerned civilian worried about our military.

Research-Oriented Scholarships in Human Rights or Health Promotion

I believe Canada's  top soldier; he's a good and honourable man.  Canada could use more people like him.

 

[The Bread Guy]

....cited here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/93301.0.html

I wonder if any media will quote this in their stories about Canadians (allegedly) "outsourcing interrogations to the NDS" (highlights mine):

.... While there may be considerable information sharing with the CIA, which is known to work closely with the NDS at a national level, cooperation between the NDS and ISAF forces in Kandahar has been limited, and the NDS appears to carefully manage its intelligence sharing with ISAF.  The NDS participates with ISAF, the ANA, and the ANP in the Kandahar Operational Coordination Center–Province (OCCP), but it has not worked with Canadian or other ISAF mentors.  The NDS often insists on complete control over operations conducted by ANA and ANP troops, and limits sharing of operational intelligence. On raids with the ANA and their Canadian partners in Kandahar City, for example, the NDS has deployed the ANA to form cordons and conducted detentions itself while ANA officers and their ISAF partners are left unaware of the actual target of their mission.  Given the reported closeness of the NDS to the Karzai family, the NDS’ insistence on maintaining complete control over its operations and information sharing may be done in order to protect its political interests and those of its allies in the South ....

(BTW, lots more good stuff on the work of the Canadians in general in the report - long, complex, but worth a read.)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just in from CBC.ca:

The House of Commons has a right to order the government to produce uncensored documents related to the treatment of Afghan detainees, Speaker Peter Milliken has ruled.

Milliken is currently delivering his ruling on whether the government breached parliamentary privilege by refusing to hand over the documents to members of a special committee examining torture allegations.

Speaking Tuesday in the House, Milliken ruled the parliamentary order for the government to produce the documents was "clear" and procedurally acceptable.

He also ruled Defence Minister Peter MacKay did not intimidate government witnesses slated to appear before a parliamentary committee with his statement in the Commons ....

 

[dapaterson]

Speaker Milliken did a nifty little dance - Parliament remains supreme, the executive may still exercise some powers - but sort it out in two weeks - or else.

Since neither of the two largest parties wants an election right now, and particularly not one about the privileges of Parliament, some compromise wil be found.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It'll be interesting to see what kind of mechanism comes out, how long it'll take for the leaks to begin, and what happens to said leakers.

 

[GAP]

Fine....let the opposition have their inquiry.....you get to write the mandate of the inquiry. I don't see any way the Cons will simply roll over on this.................

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I suspect that this will probably end up in front of the Supreme's. Also be interesting to see what the talking head's have to say in tomorrow's papers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Also be interesting to see what the talking head's have to say in tomorrow's papers.

Already some tough talk on Twitter from the PM's former media dude Kory Teneycke:

At the end of the day, Iggy & Layton are a couple spineless wets. Want to go to the polls on Taliban prisoners? Not likely.

Seen this movie before... EI last summer. Iggy will talk really tough, then accept some token measure to avoid the polls.

Gov. is right. Crown prerogative is about Ntl security (& not new). This is all about electoral politics for Liberals & sport for the media.

 

[GAP]

I suspect that this will probably end up in front of the Supreme's. Also be interesting to see what the talking head's have to say in tomorrow's papers.

I  don't think the Supreme Court wants it, and  the Conservatives don't want someone else determining their control. If the Libs were in power, they would be reacting the same....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hansard from yesterday here - PDF attached.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Since a key argument in the government's refusal to produce to the Commons unredacted documents on the Afghan detainee matter is that there are statutory provisions against doing so in some circumstances, it seems to me that the cornerstone of Speaker Milliken's ruling is found here: 
http://communities.canada.com/SHAREIT/blogs/politics/archive/2010/04/27/full-text-speaker-milliken-s-historic-ruling.aspx 

"... 
Odgers`Australian Senate Practice, 12th edition, at page 51, states clearly: 


    ―Parliamentary privilege is not affected by provisions in statutes which prohibit in general terms the disclosure of 
    categories of information...Statutory provisions of this type do not prevent the disclosure of information covered by the provisions to a House of the Parliament or to a parliamentary committee in the course of a parliamentary inquiry. They ... do not prevent committees seeking the information covered by such provisions or persons who have that information providing it to committees.‖ 


In light of these various authorities [others before start of quote], the Chair must conclude that the House does indeed have the right to ask for the documents listed in the Order of December 10, 2009..." 

It seems most odd to me that the Australian citation allows a statutory prohibition--which must be passed by both Houses of Parliament--effectively to be over-ridden by a vote in just one of those houses; indeed it would seem even by a vote in just one committee with a relatively small number of members.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[leroi]

Drop Detainee Debate: Diplomat

Canada Faces More Important Issues: Afghan Ambassador

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Drop+detainee+debate+diplomat/2959974/story.html

However, he said, the most negative impact is the monopoly the detainee issue has on the national discussion about Afghanistan.

"We need discussion in Canada about where Afghanistan is going, how important it is that Canada supports us and how important it is that the support continues in some shape or form. That discussion is not happening because this story has totally dominated discussion in Parliament."

 

[GAP]

You're dreaming right?

With Libs and Dippers smelling blood, that's like clearing a patch of chummed water and telling the sharks it's all gone....