Pages: [1] 2 3 4 
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Bruises don't warrant a military inquiry (Read 4077 times)
|
Jesse Reed
Veteran 100+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 153
|
Don Martin in Ottawa, National Post
Published: Thursday, February 08, 2007
So let's put off hunting down the Taliban, the better to scour Kandahar for three Afghans who may have been injured while resisting arrest by Canadian forces --or may well be dead after a successful stint as suicide bombers.
And in lieu of concern for soldiers being killed or wounded, let "a political storm" (to use one newspaper's breathless hyperbole) erupt at some cuts, bruises and a couple of black eyes that allegedly appeared on a detained trio of suspicious dudes.
In a theatre of war that has claimed 45 Canadian lives and maimed dozens of soldiers for life, the overstretched military is about to waste time and resources defending itself against the hypothetical prospect it may have beaten up several resistant suspects 10 months ago.
A board of inquiry into three men's alleged injuries was called on Tuesday, and military police have been ordered to search for the missing Afghans, who were handed over to local authorities for further questioning.
But try to imagine being the soldiers now accused of mistreating prisoners last April. Your Kandahar deployment has endured the fiercest fighting of a Canadian mission in three decades and suffered three deaths in the previous month.
The Taliban enemy is on the move back into the region by night and sheltered by locals during the day.
You bust down the door of a house fingered by informants as suspicious and find bomb-making devices and fertilizer used in making explosives. You order a "fighting age male" to hit the floor. He refuses. It takes four soldiers to force the yelling, kicking suspect to his knees.
On the same day, a young Afghan is seen watching troop movements from a nearby hill. He tries to flee, but is apprehended and searched. A cellphone, address book, car keys and signal mirror are found. He escapes, is recaptured the next day and refuses to answer any questions.
Fast forward to Tuesday when revelations about upper torso injuries on the above suspects puts Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier under the media interrogation lights and facing comparisons with the 1993 death of a young Somali in Canadian military hands. Oh, puh-LEEZE.
This all started when Ottawa university professor Amir Attaran connected a random series of dots on documents released by the military to produce a picture of alleged brutality even he admits -- and indeed hopes -- may be wrong.
This is not comparable to the torture-to-death of a young Somali, the hellish humiliations of Baghdad's Abu Ghraib or even on par with some victims of nasty RCMP custody.
Mr. Attaran, to the internationally acclaimed academic's credit, is willing to give the armed forces the benefit of considerable doubt. He admits his formal request for an inquiry was based on "guesses" or "inferences" and includes "the possibility of ambiguity and error."
Drawing such tenuous conclusions is not entirely his fault. The military served as its own worst enemy by censoring the documents Mr. Attaran obtained under an Access to Information request to the point where almost any academic hypothesis fits the sketchy field facts provided.
If our secretive armed forces want to force an inquiry rather than release the evidence to prove it's all so unnecessary, well, I guess that's their own damn fault. Still, it seems like such a waste for military brass to shift into damage control for a prolonged inquiry if there's proof of a legitimate explanation for the detainee bumps and scrapes.
Now, I'm the furthest thing from a soldier, but if someone described as a "fighting age male" is caught with material for an "improvised explosive device," ignores verbal and physical commands, yells "belligerently" and moves in an "aggressive" manner toward four stressed-out soldiers, he's asking for injuries. The fact a limb wasn't broken or a skull cracked only suggests the soldiers were being gentle.
Of course, it's possible there's a cover-up happening here, which might be a more egregious development than the physical abuse. When military information disappears, it's usually missing for a reason.
But even the worst possible scenario based on a creative analysis of the released documents -- that a few soldiers used too much muscle in making some Afghan apprehensions -- is not enough to justify the hysterical attention this matter has received.
Only in Canada could the cuts and bruises suffered by a few suspected terrorists give the entire Canadian military a black eye. The murderous take-no-prisoners Taliban can only be laughing at the insanity of it all.
Jesse
|
Jesse Reed
reedj@rogers.com
1-866-808-9066
(Toll free North America)
|
|
|
Gerry Connors
Veteran 500+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 558
(Optional) Your Text here.
|
Well of course some media put their own spin on certain stories: they weave the 'facts' to fit their own agenda  : "If it ain't bleedin', it ain't readin'' 
|
1RCR Duke's Coy '82 - '87; Cyprus '84 / '85
LOTPed medic 1988; CFH Halifax '88 - '90
119 AD Bty medic, CFB Chatham '90 - '95
2RCR medic '95 - '00; SFOR Bosnia, 2RCR Roto 4 '99;
42 Hlth Svc Gagetown '00 - '02
CFRC Gagetown / Fredericton '02 - '06; 'retired' Aug '06
HMCS Jolliet, Sept-Iles QC, medical staff / 'tiffy' (reserves)
|
|
|
dave sewell
Veteran 100+ Member
Offline
Posts: 188
(Optional) Your Text here.
|
The bruises on these people are pretty minor comparded to the beheading that they show on the net.There doesnt seem to be as much of a problem with that. Maybe the people that worry about these minior injuries should complain to the famailies of the soilders that gave up their lives,so that they would continue to have the freedom of speech they so cherish.
|
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2331
|
Well, Jesse , a really nice write up and great read.. you have a way with words.. and i must agree with it all.. and wonder why about some things , as you do, i think your statemant about no broken limbs or cracjked skulls sums it up entirely... they must have been treated pretty gently, as gently as possible when they are being subdied as they kick and punch , trying to gain freedom...it says it all , stop wasting time on something that happened 10 months ago and is highly likely to be untrue, if not impossible to accuratly investigate now.. thanks for getting this up here Jesse, ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
I guess we don't have to worry about it now as the detainees have, ah, disappeared....
O'Connor issues about-face on detainees
ALEX DOBROTA
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in an about-face from earlier comments, acknowledged Thursday that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not inform Canada of the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops and transferred to Afghan authorities.
In a terse statement released to The Globe and Mail Thursday evening, Mr. O'Connor said: "It was my understanding that the ICRC could share information concerning detainee treatment with Canada.
"I have recently learned that they would, in fact, provide this information to the detaining nation, in this case Afghanistan."
Those comments contradict several assurances Mr. O'Connor made in the House of Commons. In May, Mr. O'Connor told MPs that the Red Cross would report any detainee abuse to Canadian authorities.
A University of Ottawa law professor recently sent a letter to the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission alleging that at least one, perhaps three Afghan detainees "taken captive by the Canadian Forces appears to have been beaten while detained and interrogated by them."
Amir Attaran based the allegations on documents obtained under the Access to Information Act outlining injuries in the cases. The story, first reported in The Globe early February, caused a political storm in Ottawa. Canada's top soldier, General Rick Hillier, ordered a full-blown board of inquiry into detainee treatment in Afghanistan. The independent Military Police Complaints Commission also ordered a "public-interest investigation" into possible detainee abuse by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. And a criminal investigation by a special unit of the military police has also been ordered.
Meanwhile, The Globe learned earlier this month, the three detainees at the heart of the multiple probes disappeared while in Afghan custody, posing significant challenges for the criminal probe and raising new doubts about government assurances that all detainees are properly treated and accounted for.
Mr. O'Connor was first contradicted by Simon Schorno, a spokesman for the ICRC, who told The Globe and Mail that the Red Cross does not monitor the Canada-Afghanistan agreement on detainee transfer.
(Mr. Schorno contacted The Globe and Mail Thursday to make a minor clarification in information he had previously provided. "While the ICRC has no formal agreement with the Canadian government to visit persons detained by Canada in Afghanistan, it has, in fact, carried out ad hoc visits to individuals in the temporary custody of Canadian forces in Afghanistan before those individuals were either released or transferred to the custody of Afghan authorities," he said.) Thursday in Ottawa, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion listed the detainees as one of the subjects Prime Minister Stephen Harper is avoiding, charging that the Conservatives are smearing opponents to distract from such tricky questions.
"Now we learn that the Red Cross in not even aware that they need to take care of the detainees that we give to the Afghans," Mr. Dion said. "There are a lot of questions that he should answer instead to try to smear the reputation of opponents."
The Prime Minister's Office referred questions on the issue to Mr. O'Connor's office.
After multiple calls and e-mails, ministerial spokesperson Isabelle Bouchard issued the e-mail statement, but refused to answer questions on what Mr. O'Connor knew and when.
Mr. O'Connor said last week that many detainees are bribed out of Afghan prisons. "It's quite a revolving-door system," he said.
Canada makes no provision for follow-up monitoring to ensure its captives don't disappear —or worse — once they are transferred into Afghanistan's notorious prisons.
With a report from Campbell Clark and staff
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Oh oh. This is getting rather strange. Logically, I mean. First of all, this agreement about the transfer of prisoners. You will recall, at the time, when questions were raised, DM O'Conner assured us the IRC would ensure the prisoners would be monitored in the light of treatment by the rules of conduct which Canada is built on. General Hillier mentioned the dreaded word Gitmo and how the Afghans would be more humane. For whatever reason, neither has proven to be exactly accurate and the investigation launched in reference to the reason for this thread has now aroused issues that far transcend a few bruises. No one can find the three prisoners in question. Or any record of what happened to them after the transfer. Let alone an IRC or Red crescent overview reports DM O'Connor repeatedly assured Canadians about for thye past year. Misleading, incompetent, whatever, ignore the political smokescreen and you still have to ask yourself what the hell is going on. Yesterday, in an effort to finally clarify the situation DM O'Conner flew to Afghanistan to, as the attached article declares, look the human rights dude in the eye... And when he gets there he finds out that Buddy is TO BUSY to meet with him... How do you interpret that? Did he not phone before he left and, if the dude wasn't going to meet, why not delay the trip until there could be a formal meeting wherein this very serious matter could be addressed.
And why is it that it is not his, the defense minister, the formal representive of this government's signature on the document when this is clearly a bi-lateral issue on a national, not militaristic, level. What happened to CYA... Now, it appears, and I pray that this does not come to be true, our soldiers have been ordered to transfer prisoners (by the deal Hiller made, not an elected politician) to a regime that does in fact. for whatever reason, practices the very same venues we were trying to avoid by not sending them to Gitmo. The fact neither the Afghan police or our investigative bodies cannot find the detainees does not bode well.
Hopefully, it is all a misunderstanding the and Afghans will trot these talibani out of prison and this will all go away.
Hillier has 'no regrets' over detainees
JOE FRIESEN
Globe and Mail Update
KANDAHAR — General Rick Hillier says he has no regrets about signing an agreement with the government of Afghanistan relinquishing the right to monitor the treatment of detainees.
“We think the agreement was pretty solid,” Gen. Hillier said. “We perhaps have improved it with this latest initiative, which really formalizes something which was informal and if we see an opportunity to do better ahead we will.”
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently announced that Canada has asked the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to monitor detainees handed over to Afghan authorities. Unlike Britain and the Netherlands, Canada did not retain the right to verify that detainees transferred to Afghan custody are being properly treated.
Mr. O'Connor planned to meet with Abdul Qadar Noorzai, head of the human rights commission, in Kandahar today, but meeting fell through because Mr. Noorzai was unavailable.
Mr. O'Connor said Sunday that he wanted to look Mr. Noorzai in the eye to confirm his group are “going to do what they say they're going to do.”
It's not known whether the meeting will be rescheduled.
Speaking to reporters after arriving at Kandahar airfield Monday morning, Gen. Hiller, the Chief of Defence Staff, also said the Afghan war is winnable, and that Canada can meet its troop commitments through 2009 and beyond.
“Over all, there is a growing feel that the Taliban can be put back, constrained, minimized, and diminished constantly. You're not going to do it all at once, and it's still going to take a lot of effort, but this thing is winnable,” he said.
“The Taliban is a robust force. They're a force you don't want to take lightly. At the same time they're not 10 feet tall. They took a significant body blow last fall” in Operation Medusa. He said that as time goes by, the value of Operation Medusa, and its impact on the Taliban, will become apparent.
Gen. Hillier said the Afghan mission is not putting undue strain on military resources. Canada has the capacity to keep between 2,000 and 3,000 troops out of the country, as it has done for several decades, he said.
“We've got the resources to complete this mission through to February, 2009, without question,” he said.
He also said that some soldiers will have to return for second tours of duty in Afghanistan, although the priority remains to expose as many troops as possible to a combat theatre.
“Many of our soldiers, after I talked about trying to reduce the numbers of those returning, many of the soldiers come to me constantly and say, ‘Sir, we don't like that policy,” he said. “We are going to use some people for repeat tours. That's a good thing.”
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2331
|
Good reports here Mike... and some very testy questions out there in space... and need some answers ,I think...it smacks of something rotten right now ,with prisoners.." disappeared" .. i sure hope they can be " found" ,ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
I don't mean to be a shit disturber but, c'mon, is it not our duty, as former soldiers now civvies, to ensure our brothers in arms don't get boned? On a sadder note...
Manitoba soldier charged with manslaughter
CanWest News Service
Monday, March 12, 2007
A Canadian soldier has been charged with manslaughter in the August 2006 shooting death of one of his comrades in Afghanistan.
Master Cpl. Robbie Fraser of the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Regiment (PPCLI), was charged Monday with one count of manslaughter and one count of negligent performance of duty in connection with the death of Master Cpl. Jeffrey Scott Walsh.
Walsh, 32, was killed Aug. 9, 2006, less than a week after arriving in Afghanistan while conducting a routine patrol along Highway 1 in Kandahar province, near the Zhari district centre, about 20 kilometres west of Kandahar City.
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service announced the charges against Fraser, also a member of the 2nd Battalion, PPCLI, who is stationed at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, Man.
Investigators at the time of the incident said three guns -- two personal weapons and a common or "section" firearm -- were seized and were sent to an RCMP lab in Canada for forensic testing.
Investigators also conducted interviews with the soldiers who witnessed the incident.
"Ultimately, whenever a weapon is discharged, either intentionally or unintentionally, as appears to be the case in this situation, someone is responsible," Capt. Mark Giles, public affairs officer for the military investigation service team probing the incident, said at the time. "The question for our investigators is who is responsible and whether or the not the actions taken or not taken should result in charges.''
Walsh, a Regina native, was the 25th Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan, where about 2,500 Canadian soldiers are deployed, mostly in the Kandahar area in the country’s south.
Walsh's family complained over the weekend that the military had told them little about his death.
Ben Walsh, the soldier's father, told Canadian Press that he repeatedly asked military officials about the case but was only told the investigation was ongoing.
"They have no concern about the families of fallen soldiers," Walsh said in an interview from his home in Winnipeg.
"They don't know how to deal with the families. It's terrible I have to bang on doors to get information, even (to) tell me that my son is dead. They should be treating families, especially grieving families, with a little bit of compassion and concern and they're not."
The charges against Fraser come as the military’s investigation service is also looking into the death of Cpl. Kevin Megeney, 25, who was fatally shot in the chest while in his sleeping quarters last week.
Megeney from Stellarton, N.S., arrived in Afghanistan in December as a reservist with the Nova Scotia Highlanders, which are based in New Glasgow, N.S.
He was part of a defensive security platoon which helps guard the main entranceway to the sprawling Kandahar Airfield where 10,000 soldiers and civilians are based.
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Repeat tours, general? But your boss, the DM, said that would not happen when pressed in the House of Commons. One trip to A-stan per man.... or course, I understand this is impossible, but never the less, a promise was made before the house. And is it any wonder he's hiding from the press when, according to the dude he's going to meet, 30 percent of the detainees Canada handed over to to the Afghans were beaten and tortured. Is that the Canadian way? ( it is NOT my Canadian way, that is a for F'n sure!!! Frankly, it pisses me off as our lads are working damn hard to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, not turn them against us with inept policies such as these.) And how can the general have no regrets so ever under such circumstances? Does he condone torture? beatings? The troops need some direction here before they are left holding the bag later when, as is happening now, the left wing anti-war crowd starts taking legal actions to discover the truth.
O'Connor fails to meet watchdog
By JOE FRIESEN
With a report from Gloria Galloway in Ottawa
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 – Page A1
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Already under fire for fumbling the Afghan-detainee file, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor ran into another embarrassing glitch yesterday when his plan to meet with the head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission fizzled because the organization's director wasn't in Kandahar.
Mr. O'Connor said as soon as he arrived Sunday night that he wanted to meet AIHRC head Abdul Qadar Noorzai to "look him in the eye" and confirm that his group, the newly appointed monitors of Canada's detainee agreement, are up to the job and are "going to do what they say they're going to do."
But that hope was dashed yesterday when it emerged that Mr. Noorzai was in neighbouring Helmand province. It's not known whether the meeting will be rescheduled.
Mr. O'Connor announced recently that Canada has asked the AIHRC to monitor detainees handed over to Afghan authorities. Unlike Britain and the Netherlands, Canada did not retain the right to verify that transferred detainees are being properly treated.
The Defence Minister was joined by Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, who arrived in Kandahar yesterday with no advance notice.
Although Gen. Hillier responded to reporters' questions after arriving at Kandahar airfield -- telling them that the Afghan war is winnable and that Canada can meet its troop commitments through 2009 and beyond -- Mr. O'Connor declined to talk to the news media.
Mr. O'Connor had told Parliament last year that the International Committee of the Red Cross was monitoring the detainees and would inform Canada of any abuse. The ICRC contradicted that last week, forcing the Defence Minister to admit his mistake. Mr. O'Connor said he was not trying to mislead, but was simply unaware the information he provided was erroneous.
Yesterday, Liberal critic Denis Coderre asked what Mr. O'Connor was doing in Afghanistan.
"He was going there to look right in the eyes of the person who is in charge of the independent commission of human rights of Afghanistan," Mr. Coderre said.
"Today we hear that, imagine, he won't be able to meet those people because, guess what, they are in the wrong province.
"If that agreement is solid, why does the minister have to go there and try to make his own damage control? There are some flaws and issues regarding the agreement and the way we transfer the detainees and the monitoring itself because there is no monitoring."
In an interview last year, Mr. Noorzai estimated that 30 per cent of detainees handed over to the Afghan government were beaten or tortured.
Earlier yesterday, Gen. Hillier said he has no regrets about signing the agreement that relinquished Canada's right to monitor the treatment of detainees.
"No regrets whatsoever. We're in certain circumstances here and we think we have a very good agreement with the Afghanistan government," he said.
"We perhaps have improved it with this latest initiative, which really formalizes something which was informal, and if we see opportunity ahead to do better, we will."
Gen. Hillier was upbeat about Canada's mission in the war-ravaged country.
"Over all, there is a growing feel that the Taliban can be put back, constrained, minimized, and diminished constantly. You're not going to do it all at once, and it's still going to take a lot of effort, but this thing is winnable," he said.
"The Taliban is a robust force. They're a force you don't want to take lightly. At the same time, they're not 10 feet tall. They took a significant body blow last fall," he said, referring to Operation Medusa, a huge attack against the Taliban around Kandahar in September. He said that as time goes by the impact of Operation Medusa on Taliban operations will only increase.
Gen. Hillier said the Afghan mission is not putting undue strain on military resources. Canada has the capacity to keep between 2,000 and 3,000 troops outside the country, as it has done for several decades, he said.
"We've got the resources to complete this mission through to February, 2009, without question," he said.
He also said that some soldiers will have to return for additional tours of duty in Afghanistan, although the priority remains to expose as many troops as possible to a combat theatre.
"After I talked about trying to reduce the numbers of those returning, many of the soldiers come to me constantly and say, 'Sir, we don't like that policy,' " he said.
"We are going to use some people for repeat tours. That's a good thing."
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Blood in the water?
Damage control
TheStar.com
A single thread connects most of Canada's missteps in Afghanistan: Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier
March 13, 2007
James Travers
Canada's see-no-evil handling of Afghan prisoners is more than a national embarrassment. It's also a pressing reminder that an ugly little war is exposing this Conservative government and its Liberal predecessor as at least naïve and arguably negligent.
Gordon O'Connor's surprise visit to Kabul and Kandahar this week is pure and simple damage control. Having glossed over the fact that Canada effectively washed its hands of PoWs, the defence minister is now trying to restore public confidence that prisoners will be treated as the Geneva Convention requires and self-interest demands.
But the problem runs deeper than a defence minister so superficially briefed that he either didn't understand the agreement with Afghanistan or misled Parliament that the International Red Cross is monitoring detainees and reporting any abuse to Ottawa.
O'Connor's loose grip of what's happening in Afghanistan is symptomatic of governments that put Canadians in harm's way without fully defining the mission, analyzing limitations on success or limiting the risks.
Harsh as that sounds, the record is worse.
Liberals dithered so long in shifting the mission from north to south that more decisive allies grabbed the safer reconstruction projects while Canada was left to go toe-to-toe with the Taliban.
It's just as revealing – if easier to forgive – that neither the military nor its political masters forecast the fierceness of the fighting or that major battles would require Cold War weapons left at home.
Conservatives are guilty of reckless haste and playing partisan politics. In successfully dividing Liberals by extending the mission to 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper failed to extract from NATO, Pakistan and the Afghan government any of the admittedly hard-to-get commitments necessary to give the troops a fighting chance.
Each administration has a defence.
A less dangerous than predicted maiden tour in Kabul made the military overconfident and helped convince Liberals that it was possible to get in and out of Kandahar without heavy casualties.
Under pressure from NATO and from a military with its own agenda, Conservatives seized an option that neatly bundled political, defence and foreign-policy interests.
A single thread connects most of this: Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. As former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham says, Hillier's fingerprints are all over a mission that, among many other things, was intended to shake Canada's dated image as the world's peacekeeper and justify rebuilding the forces, particularly the army, into something leaner, faster-moving and more muscular.
Hillier's tough talk and blatant politicking continue to raise eyebrows: After all, he is a senior public servant and in this country mandarins are anonymous.
But Hillier is popular with the troops and useful to politicians who don't mind that he's increasingly identified with a war polarizing public opinion.
That final point is most worrying. If war is too important to leave to generals, then democratic governments can't shirk full responsibility for its declaration and prosecution.
Canada does better on the first test than the second. Along with much of the world, this country has good reason for denying Al Qaeda a state sponsor. And protecting some of the most vulnerable people is admirable, even if the concern doesn't stretch to, say, Darfur.
What Ottawa isn't demonstrating yet is the due diligence required when lives are at stake. The necessary thoroughness was missing from Liberal analysis of the Kandahar mission as well as from the Conservative extension and is now evident in the laissez-faire handling of prisoners.
Concerns with PoW treatment date to at least 2002 when a front-page photograph caught Canada's elite Joint Task Force Two handing detainees to the same American forces operating notorious prisons in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Suspect arrangements since then did more to make life easy for the military and insulate politicians from criticism than to guard against abuse.
Protecting prisoners is important. It affects how others see us, how we see ourselves and upholds the standard this country expects for the treatment of captured Canadians.
But there is another concern at least as significant. Citizens need to know their governments take seriously something as serious as war.
O'Connor's failure to ensure PoWs are treated as Canadians expect only increases doubts about government competence. First Liberals and then Conservatives committed troops too easily to a hazy mission and both ruling parties were too willing to accept uncertain guarantees for prisoner safety.
Canadians are now asking a lot of their troops in Afghanistan. Surely they should demand as much from their politicians.
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Grunt...
Amir Attaran on the treatment of Afghan detainees
Globe and Mail Update
"In December of 2005, General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, signed a covert agreement to transfer war detainees to Afghanistan's domestic and secret police forces," Amir Attaran writes on the Comment Page of today's Globe and Mail in his article Treat 'em right
"The agreement has since leaked into the open. Human-rights advocates deplore detainee transfers because of Afghanistan's cruel treatment, [while] Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor praises detainee transfers because they 'help strengthen [Afghan] capacity and good governance.'
"No fewer than five lawsuits and investigations are now sorting out the difference.
"But as time passes, it grows undeniable that transferring detainees to Afghanistan is a source of shame.
The Globe and Mail
"Even the Afghan government's own human-rights watchdog concedes that torture is 'a routine part of police procedures.' The techniques, according to the U.S. State Department, include 'pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation, and sodomy.'
"Thus, when Canadian soldiers follow standing orders and transfer men to self-confessed torturers, they could be — through no fault of their own — aiding and abetting that offence, which makes them prosecutable for war crimes. Willful blindness has trumped caution and responsibility."
Prof. Attaran has raised important points surrounding the treatment of Afghan detainees by Canadian Forces.
He has been both praised -- and vilified -- for doing so.
Prof. Attaran was online earlier today to take your questions on this column and on the broader issues. Your questions and his answers appear at the bottom of this article.
Amir Attaran is by training both a biologist and lawyer, and is currently Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy, of the Faculties of Law and Medicine at the University of Ottawa.
Prof. Attaran's research emphasizes the subject of development and human security in poor countries. His interests include: To study the uses and accountability of foreign aid; to study how policies and technology converge to advance the standard of medical care for people in the world's poorest countries; and to apply Canadian and international human rights law toward crises affecting transnational justice and human security and development.
Prof. Attaran's peer-reviewed publications have appeared in the leading journals of both the legal and biomedical professions, including the Yale Journal of International Law, the Stanford Journal of International Law, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and others.
Currently he is an editorial consultant to The Lancet, and on the editorial team of the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
Prof. Attaran often writes on global development and governance issues, has presented to diverse audiences on public policy and global development, including at the International AIDS Conference, the World Economic Forum in Davos, and the World Health Organization, and has testified in Canada's Parliament and America's Senate.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on Mr. Attaran, or other participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Good afternoon, Prof. Attaran, thanks for joining us today to take questions from globeandmail.com readers on the very important issue of Canada's treatment of Afghan detainees.
It's particularly appropriate timing since Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor admitted yesterday that he was wrong to argue publicly for a lengthy period of time that the International Red Cross was monitoring the treatment of detainees and would have told Canadian authorities if anything untoward was happening to them.
Why do you think the government has been so slow to get the basic facts about this situation when you and others have been calling for action for so long?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Jim, the Harper government has been slow to correct itself. For example, it took nearly one year to correct Mr. O'Connor's falsehood that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was monitoring the treatment of Canada's detainees while in Afghan custody.
Those of us in the legal field knew that Mr. O'Connor was not telling the truth when he told the House of Commons: "If there is something wrong with [the detainees'] treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."
By very long tradition, the ICRC normally keeps the results of its inspections confidential, except for sharing them with the detaining power (which after we transfer a person would be Afghanistan). The ICRC's confidentiality is so carefully controlled that it did not even publicly denounce the varied abuses of Nazi concentration camps, and did not denounce the use of torture of Guantanamo Bay, until these atrocities became known through other avenues.
Mr. O'Connor has not been open to dialogue. I asked to meet him in a spirit of exchange, including to advise him on correcting his statements that were false. He never accepted my invitation. Leading human rights groups also asked to meet him, and were shrugged off similarly. I cannot speculate as to why he refused to meet, or has been slow to admit deceiving Canadians. But that is, unfortunately, the reality.
James McEwen, Belleville, Ont: Fighting with terrorists is like fighting with pigs. Everyone gets dirty.
How can you expect to defeat terrorism if you don't fight them with the same vigour and lack of conscience as they use in the pursuit of their aims?
Sorry, I can't feel anything but anger towards terrorists who target innocents and use civilians and children as shields to protect themselves while they do their killing.
I firmly believe that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they represent no country and are not signatories to the treaty . . .
I'm sure that someone can tell me how wrong and small-minded I am in harbouring this negative attitude towards the Taliban and al-Qaeda . . . Enough said, now tell me how wrong I am!
Prof. Amir Attaran: Mr. McEwen, your question represents the misconceptions of some Canadians. And since you asked to be told how wrong you are, let me list the ways.
First, you believe terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Actually, the Geneva Conventions do cover them.
In an armed conflict, whether an international war or a civil war, ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE who Canada detains has certain rights under the Geneva Conventions.
That is true whether the person is a regular, uniformed combatant carrying arms openly and belonging to a conventional armed force, or an irregular combatant not in uniform and not carrying arms openly (the status most people associate with "terrorists," a word that has no precise meaning), or a civilian haplessly caught up in the hostilities.
Exactly which rights one has differs with one's status, and that is too complex a question of law to digest here.
But at a minimum, detainees of all kinds have the right not to be tortured and to be protected from "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The words I quote are from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. You may not like it, but that is the law.
Second, the Canadian Forces have said that no matter what status a detainee has — even "terrorists" — he or she will have the FULL protections of the Geneva Conventions, and not just the bare-bones protection of Article 3. Let me quote the Forces themselves on this: "It is Canadian Forces policy that all captured persons or detainees be treated to the standard required for PWs [prisoners of war], as this is the highest standard required under International Humanitarian Law."
So there you have it. If you believe it is correct to show a "lack of conscience" (your words) and to discard international law and Canadian Forces' policy, fine. But your views hardly lie within the mainstream of the rule of law or Canadian Forces policy.
I believe my country should follow the law and observe its policy — and on that, we differ.
Arne Moores, Vancouver: I found the comparison to our treatment of POWs during WW2 illuminating and potentially important.
However, I vaguely remember being told by an expert that the situation in Afghanistan is somewhat different. We are in that country at the request of the official Afghan government rather than being at war.
I have two linked questions: (1) Does this difference change our legal responsibilities under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of those we capture, and if so, how? (2) If not, do you know of any official (if little-known) change in Canadian policy that would explain the difference in state behaviour?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Mr. Moores, I think answered your first question in the preceding reply to Mr. McEwen.
So focusing more carefully on your second question: There has been a change in Canadian Forces' practice, though not in Canadian Forces' policy. The policy is still that all detained persons in Afghanistan — all of them, no exceptions — should receive the full Geneva Conventions protections of a prisoner of war.
That would include, obviously, not to be transferred to known torturers such as the Afghan National Police or the National Directorate of Security (i.e. the secret police).
The shame of it is that, by current practice, the Canadian Forces are transferring persons to those units, in full knowledge that they carry out torture, and this is the starkest possible violation of both the Geneva Conventions and the Canadian Forces' own policy.
The person who signed the agreement with Afghanistan stipulating those transfers is General Hillier himself. He should be asked why he has led the Forces into a situation where their own policy is being disregarded, and as the official responsible, the buck stops with him.
Jasmine Francis, Halifax: Sir, I am curious what got you interested in this issue. Religion? Human rights?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Ms. Francis, my interest is certainly human rights — emphatically so.
Another interest is to preserve the dignity and honour of Canada. I was born in California, not Canada, and I chose to study, work and live this country, and ultimately to take Canadian citizenship, because I love Canadians' decency.
It pains me to see the Canadian Forces reneging on their policy and obligation to uphold the Geneva Conventions, and it appalls me to see my government making excuses — some of them which are now proved untrue — to have truck with torturers.
Come on: We are better than that.
I am often asked if religion has something to do with my beliefs. Not at all. I usually detect in that question a certain curiosity as to whether I am a Muslim. I am not. But as the three major monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in order of their histories — all agree, showing decency toward one's fellow man is an obligation. That means we must not torture our fellow man (or woman).
In fact, the religions and human rights law require exactly the same thing.
Shasha Liang, Toronto: Mr. Attaran, in order to bring these issues to light, you used the freedom of information act.
In doing so, did the nature of the situation pose an obstacle to you or were there difficulties in obtaining the information requested?
I was also wondering whether the information you received was adequate and easily accessible as FOI requests are meant to be. I ask this since in your recent interview with the CBC, you stated that certain aspects had been blacked out and took time to organize.
This question is from York University students looking into the FOI process and the military.
Prof. Amir Attaran: Greetings to York University.
The law I used to research this problem was, to be precise, the federal Access to Information Act (ATI). I encountered huge obstacles. Here's a story:
The Department of National Defence takes a very restrictive view of what it has to disclose under ATI. Probably, this is to avoid disclosing anything embarrassing to them.
For example, DND has refused to disclose to me photographs of a person detained by the Canadian Forces, and they explained their refusal not as a necessity of military secrecy but rather as necessary to protect the confidentiality of the detainee's personal information.
I pointed out to DND that the person, who has now been transferred to the Afghan police, and who is one of the 3 men who has gone missing, would probably not lose sleep over disclosing personal information, and is probably more worried about being tortured or summarily murdered without a trial — both abuses that the Afghan officials commit.
Disclosing the photograph would help locate the person and bring him to safety. Still, DND refused. Even the federal Information Commissioner, to whom I appealed DND's decision, has not persuaded DND to divulge that photo.
Meanwhile, I used ATI to ask a different federal agency, Correctional Service Canada, if it could provide me photographs of Afghan detainees. It gave me many of them — service with a smile, and in very little time. There were no objections at all about protecting personal information.
I cannot prove that DND's odd behavior means that it has something to hide, but that certainly is my impression.
Ranald Walton, Hamilton, Ont.: Sir, you claim in your Globe column today that Canadian soldiers [— through no fault of their own —] may be prosecutable for war crimes [because of the way the detainees have been handled]. Do you have any specific evidence of specific Canadian military personnel who may be committing war crimes [in the handling of detainees]?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Mr. Walton, as I just explained to the York University students, DND is extremely stingy about disclosing information. Why, DND is even more secretive than the Pentagon.
For example, if you wanted to know the names of detainees the Americans have sent to Guantanamo Bay, all you have to do is visit the Pentagon's website, where you would find a list of about 700 names.
In comparison, DND has never released the name of even a single detainee when asked — and it has been asked many times, including by Parliament. DND's excuse is that to divulge any detainees' names at all would breach the secrecy necessary for military operations. Funny, because the Americans have done that 700 times, and their military operations are still going strong.
When an agency is so extremely and unreasonably secretive, it is impossible to locate, as you put it, "specific evidence of specific Canadian military personnel who may be committing war crimes."
What we do know, however, is that Canadian military personnel, and generally the military police, have transferred 40 or more people to the Afghan police, when the Afghan government itself concedes that torture is "routine" when in police custody.
If one of those detainees were tortured — and the odds are not low — it would be a very serious problem for the Canadian Forces for many reasons, including that aiding or abetting torture is a war crime.
That is a strong reason why the government must stop the current detainee transfer policy, because it risks to bring legal harm to young Canadian soldiers through no fault of their own.
Jason Schmidt, Saskatoon: Prof. Attaran, a recent Globe article said that you and your family had suffered harassment, insults and abuse over your role in revealing this sad state of affairs. Can you elaborate?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Mr. Schmidt, The Globe's article was accurate that I have had hate mail. Goodness, even my poor secretary has had hate mail! There is also a fair bit of angry sentiment on various websites.
I wrote to Mr. O'Connor to inform him about that because some of the messages could be traced to veterans and the families of soldiers, and I asked him to make a statement distancing the Canadian Forces from the dishonorable actions of these keyboard warriors. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Connor never answered me.
But aside from that unpleasantness, what I think is more important is this: I have had a huge number of letters from Canadians who are upset at the detainee transfer policy, and who are optimistic that something can be done about it. I share their optimism.
As I wrote on The Globe and Mail's opinion page today, during World War II, Canada managed to imprison and treat humanely about 40,000 European detainees. It cost money, yes, but we did it because we are a decent people. Yet somehow today the government and military are stymied to imprison and treat humanely 40 odd Afghan detainees.
The many, supportive Canadians who expressed their support and who want something done are not enemies of the military. They just want today's military to live up to its past excellence.
The men and women of the Canadian Forces are decent, even extraordinary, Canadians. If they are eventually given the right commands by General Hillier, they will do the right thing.
R.M., Regina: I am in favour of the fair and expeditious handling of detainees and deplore such facilities as Guantanamo Bay which are perhaps (?) one step up from concentration camps.
However my question is: How can we prevent terrorists or those with terrorists sympathies from using legal loopholes to avoid prosecution for crimes committed elsewhere. In other words, using our system of justice to hide and "shield" them?
Prof. Amir Attaran: This is a very good question, R.M., and the best answer I can give you in a short few lines is to recommend that you read history, because it teaches that terrorism is not a new phenomenon. Guy Fawkes was a terrorist. Louis Riel was a terrorist. History is not short on terrorists, some of whom (like Riel) have been rehabilitated.
I find history comforting, because what it tells me is that despite challenges — despite even terrorism — our system of justice has strong roots, and has survived and grown over centuries.
I think that is a wonderful, heart-warming fact, because it suggests that our justice system is a very, very robust one, which cannot be exploited easily by terrorists in search of legal loopholes. When, as sometimes happens, a loophole is exploited, the law reacts and closes it up.
It is precisely that sort of reaction which over time improves on the law, and which gives the common law countries (like Canada) the excellent foundation of laws that we have today.
Thus, terrorists will needle us. They will poke and prod at our legal system. But they have not the dimmest hope to overcome that system. And if we trust and respect our laws, certainly terrorists never will defeat us.
Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks very much, Prof. Attaran, for taking the time to answer questions today on globeandmail.com.
Do you have any last thoughts, or a comment on anything that you were not asked on this issue?
Prof. Amir Attaran: Jim, thanks very much for making the opportunity available. And thanks to those who sent questions.
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3496
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
Afghan official wants help from Canada to protect human rights
Graham Thomson
CanWest News Service
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — Taliban suspects captured by Canadian soldiers and turned over to Afghan authorities are at the mercy of a corrupt, unprofessional police force, says a human-rights official in southern Afghanistan.
"We don’t have the professional police, we don’t have the professional intelligence for doing investigations," said Abdul Noorzai, the southern Afghanistan director of the country’s independent human rights commission. "There are personal grudges, there are tribal problems, tribal disputes. This is why we don’t have the professional force that can do the real investigations."
Those | | | |
Logged
