Canucks complicit in torturing innocents in Afghanistan

[praktik]

Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans, diplomat says

Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans, diplomat says - The Globe and Mail

In a damning indictment of how Canada handled prisoners early in its southern Afghan mission, a government whistleblower says all captives that Canadian soldiers transferred to local authorities ended up being tortured – even though many were likely innocent.

The revelation to MPs by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin, who served 17 months in Afghanistan, is the first ever testimony by a government official that says the country's military handed over detainees to certain torture.

The Harper government has never admitted it knew this was happening.

In his remarks to a Parliamentary committee on the Afghanistan mission, Mr. Colvin also described a startling pattern of indifference and obstruction to his attempts to warn higher ups of what was happening in 2006 and 2007.

He said Canada's “complicity in torture” ultimately thwarted its military aims in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

“Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners. Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.”

Mr. Colvin, who first started red-flagging for Ottawa “serious, imminent and alarming” problems with the treatment of detainees in May 2006, said Canada took far more prisoners in the early days than some other NATO allies. He said Canadians captured six times more than the British and 20 times as many as the Dutch.

They were picked up ... during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence [reports] but suspicion or unproven denunciation.”

Most of the detainees Canada collected were not what Afghan intelligence services would call “high value targets” such as Taliban commanders, al-Qaeda terrorists or bomb makers, Mr. Colvin told MPs in testimony Wednesday.

“Many were just local people: farmers; truck drivers; tailors, peasants – random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Yet, he said, they all faced the same fate. “According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured. For interrogators in Kandahar, it was standard operating procedure,” Mr. Colvin said.

“In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.”

The diplomat said from the very beginning in May 2006 his warnings were sent to the senior ranks of the military. This included Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, then-commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, which oversees foreign deployments. Mr. Colvin said he believes that Lt.-Gen. Gauthier would have relayed these reports to Canada's top soldier at the time, General Rick Hillier.

It wasn't until May of 2007 that the Harper government overhauled its prisoner-transfer agreement with the Afghan government, negotiating a new one that allowed for follow-up visits to ensure detainees weren't tortured.

Before then, the Conservative government fiercely defended the treatment of Afghans they had handed over to Kabul's security services for interrogation, with then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor saying that if there was something wrong the Red Cross would have informed Canada.

But Mr. Colvin, now posted at Canada's embassy in the United States, said the Red Cross had trouble even contacting Canada. He said for three months in 2006, when the Red Cross tried to raise concerns about detainees with the Canadian army, the “Canadian Forces in Kandahar wouldn't even take their phone calls.” It's now known the Red Cross was trying to warn Ottawa about abuse.

The diplomat said the Canadian government responded to his frequent warnings by telling him to stop writing these concerns into reports. He said those asking him to censor himself included David Mulroney, then the senior point man on Afghanistan, as well as Colleen Swords, a senior official at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT).

At first, we were mostly ignored. However by April 2007 we were receiving written messages from the senior Canadian government co-ordinator for Afghanistan to the effect that I should be quiet and do what I was told, and also phone messages from a DFAIT assistant deputy minister suggesting that, in future, we should not put things on paper, but instead use the telephone,” Mr. Colvin told MPs.

He said censorship expanded with the arrival of Arif Lalani as Canada's new ambassador to Afghanistan in May 2007.

“Immediately, thereafter, the paper trail on detainees was reduced,” he said. “Reports on detainees began sometimes to be censored with crucial information removed.”

Conservative government MPs listening to Mr. Colvin's testimony said they doubted his testimony, suggesting captured prisoners have lied about abuse or self-harmed themselves for propaganda purposes.

“Out of 5,000 Canadians who have travelled through there, at least in that period of time, you were the one single person who is coming forward with this information. So you will forgive me if I am skeptical,” Tory MP Jim Abbott said.

Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant said talk of abuse of detainees is hurting public support for Afghan military mission.

“The fanning of the fames of outrage over allegations [of torture], however unproven, are really having the desired effect on the Canadian people of wanting our troops to return even quicker.”

-----------

Can we leave now please??

[praktik]

NDP demands public inquiry on torture allegations
Jane Taber

NDP demands public inquiry on torture allegations - The Globe and Mail

The NDP is calling for a public inquiry into the torture of Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops.

The call comes on the heels of explosive testimony yesterday by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin who said the torture of prisoners is “standard operating procedure.”

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said there is a “moral imperative to uncover the truth” about the involvement of Canadian officials. Mr. Colvin testified that senior officials did not want to hear his allegations.

Mr. Dewar said that there needs to be an “independent lens” to look at this issue. He says it is “inconceivable” that Mr. Colvin’s allegations were not passed along to ministers.

As well, Mr. Dewar and his colleague, NDP defence critic Jack Harris raised issues about the credibility of Canada’s ambassador to China, David Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney was named by Mr. Colvin yesterday as one of the senior officials who did not want to hear his allegations.

But it comes at a sensitive time for Mr. Mulroney and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is about to leave on a major visit - his first one since he became prime minister - to China early next month.

The issue now is how can he press human rights in China given the allegations made yesterday? Indeed, the torture allegations were all over the Chinese press today.

“Mr. Harper needs to speak on this and he really hasn’t,” Mr. Dewar said.

Mr. Dewar also expressed his anger and shock with the way in which he said Mr. Colvin was treated by Conservative MPs at the committee yesterday.

“It was reprehensible,” Mr. Dewar said. “… They’ve gone back to this pathetic playbook to undermine the person who puts forward the question. They were trying to make Mr. Colvin out, if you can imagine, as a patsy for the insurgency and the Taliban.”

“Torture is not a grand conspiracy,” he said. “For the government to come out and say things like, ‘Oh, well maybe what you saw was not torture.’ This reminds me of what we hear from despotic regimes, like in Iran, when prisoners are turned to have been abused and they might have run into a wall a couple of times. Give me a break.”

Mr. Dewar said he can’t imagine how the government could not agree to call this inquiry. He said that there is a “cloud” right now over the government’s reputation.

To do nothing, he said, could undermine the Prime Minister’s efforts to look more credible on the world stage.

Says Mr. Harris: “I think that this government’s credibility is going to depend on making sure that the air is clear.”

[Hi i'm God]

That's easily asked and one wonders why it wasn't that simple for the Liberals to be the first to do it.

[praktik]

Probably standard caution - waiting til the polls come back and deciding then... rather than standing on principle..

[judge wopner]

you cant simply hand over prisoners and suspects to officials from a government that you know is rife with corruption and expect fair treatment. there should have been an oversight where the CF or ISAF worked in conjuntion with Afghan security forces during detainment and interrogation.

the other issue is what are the details of these claims? are the CF being accused of knowingly arresting innocent people or of mistreating prisoners. 2 slightly separate issues.

hopefully more details come through about how he came to know what was being done to prisoners and the basis for their arrests to make these claims. there isnt any detail outlining what the red cross knew, so we need to know there is more to these allegations than simply victim accounts.

all things aside, yes lets close out this chaper in afghanistan, things are not progressing and the whole "winning the hearts and minds" rhetoric is tiring. its been 7 years....

[praktik]

What I think adds credibility to the claims is just the context from which these allegations have spung.

I mean, there is clear documentation and easily found analysis that illustrate cases wherein innocents, farmers, taxi drivers, anyone really - fell into torture after arrest by the Americans or Afghans. It hasn't been uncommon for grudges between families or tribes to have people reported merely on the basis of someone's say-so - someone with a motive to get vengeance. People arbitrarily slapped with the label "terrorist" were treated as such.

The only safe place for custody would have been in Canadian hands. The Americans were perfecting a torture method. The Afghan authorities of course, were no stranger to coercive methods before the NATO intervention. If the Americans ostensibly running the show were torturing and justifying it in their propaganda this gave a tacit green light for their client government to at least go as far as the Americans - and in reality they went much further.

So the idea that handing over prisoners to the Afghans - or even the Americans for that matter - wouldn't end up in torture in some cases is extremely unrealistic. The Canadians are alleged to have taken in individuals on the same kind of flimsy evidence we have seen in cases like the one that formed the basis for Taxi to the Dark Side - and I see no reason to grant Canadians some form of super intelligence methods that would avoid the same pitfalls the Americans have fallen into.

This is why it is extremely stupid of the Conservatives to go after the messenger here. Perhaps they might be able to win in the propaganda war: after all the forces of nationalism and "my country right or wrong" make the Canadian public vulnerable to accepting reasons to ignore the claims of Colvin. Just look at any comments section in the major newspapers online - this demographic has a healthy representation.

That being said, its a tenuous place to be. Because the facts are just against them. Its immensely plausible that Colvin's tale is true given what we know about the war in afghanistan already - at least on the point of fact that innocents were tortured, we'll see how the accusations regarding political interference bear out.

But given the reaction of the Conservatives now to this - is it any stretch to believe that Colvin's allegations of his worries being "hushed up" might be true?

[praktik]

anyway, looks like the libs have come to the NDP corner on this and are echoing calls for an inquiry.

I fully support it.

But speaks to the Liberal wishy washiness that they had to come out 2nd, and the first headlines were about NDP demands for an inquiry.

Now the NDP get to take the lead on this and I don't doubt that springs from conviction just as much as it does - if not more - than opportunism.

Im sure there are lots of people in the party that agree but the liberals lost a chance to gain some credibility with me by not being out in front immediately on this - or heaven forbid, joining with the NDP to leap out on this together and add some moral force to it.

[Boss Hog]

I'd like to know who Peter Mackay thinks he is to suddenly call Colvin's reputation into credibility. He was credible enough to be placed there, but now that he says something they don't like that credibility's gone?

The fucking arrogance to attack his character before really looking into what went on is astounding, and speaks volumes about the Conservative stance on the issue. What a party of self-righteous, pompous douchebags.

[judge wopner]

you can read Colvin's affidavit here,

http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/Colvin_Affidavit.pdf

its mostly about procedure followed and the chain of command in which his position fell.

regarding actual allegations of torture he essentially says the information was gathered from a host of sources ranging from prisoner statements, Afghan civilian and military personal, diplomatic staff and others that he would encounter in the normal course of diplomatic work, but most of their identities are to be kept secret.

the bigger issue is were his allegations treated with any credibility within the CF and/or ISAF to at least acknowledge and investigate.

i think its shortsighted to make this a conservative specific issue, knowing that prisoners were being handed over throughout the Afghan mission,before conservatives were in power, im hesitant to simply blame one party. critical players were still there after liberals left power, ie: Hillier, so i dont believe for a second that a liberal leadership would have been void of the same shortsightedness and callousness that the cons have displayed here.

i suspect the liberal initial hesitation to call for an inquiry was due to the possibility that some of their policies and actions (or lack of) during the shift in leadership may have indicted them as well in this mess.

in terms of the allegations themselves because this is what he issue should really be about, found an interesting piece in Macleans and comments from Wesley Wark,

Security expert calls for probe of torture charges - John Geddes - Macleans.ca

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by judge wopner

you can read Colvin's affidavit here,

http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/Colvin_Affidavit.pdf

its mostly about procedure followed and the chain of command in which his position fell.

regarding actual allegations of torture he essentially says the information was gathered from a host of sources ranging from prisoner statements, Afghan civilian and military personal, diplomatic staff and others that he would encounter in the normal course of diplomatic work, but most of their identities are to be kept secret.

the bigger issue is were his allegations treated with any credibility within the CF and/or ISAF to at least acknowledge and investigate.

i think its shortsighted to make this a conservative specific issue, knowing that prisoners were being handed over throughout the Afghan mission,before conservatives were in power, im hesitant to simply blame one party. critical players were still there after liberals left power, ie: Hillier, so i dont believe for a second that a liberal leadership would have been void of the same shortsightedness and callousness that the cons have displayed here.

i suspect the liberal initial hesitation to call for an inquiry was due to the possibility that some of their policies and actions (or lack of) during the shift in leadership may have indicted them as well in this mess.

in terms of the allegations themselves because this is what he issue should really be about, found an interesting piece in Macleans and comments from Wesley Wark,

Security expert calls for probe of torture charges - John Geddes - Macleans.ca

Great posts for you folks, and frankly this story makes me completely frustrated, angry, and sick. As Boss has pointed out, what do we stand for as a people knowing our leaders who we place in good faith to lead this country do things like this? What happened to our values?

$10 - $500million+ whatever it takes, an enquirey should take place, and quite honestly, people need to go to jail, reputations ruined, whatever, not only who is in power now, but even the Liberals. This cant slide.

End Rant.

[Spinsah]

The CPC spin on this has been nothing short of repugnant. I don't know how anyone can vote for them when they treat diplomats and civil servants in such a manner.

Here's what I'm talking about...

Bureaucrats and other critics often face wrath of Conservatives - Winnipeg Free Press

OTTAWA - Hell hath no wrath like a Conservative government scorned - just ask the string of bureaucrats, advocates and citizens whose reputations have felt the fury.

Diplomat Richard Colvin is the latest to face a backlash from Tory benches. Conservative MPs at a special House of Commons committee called him a Taliban "dupe" after he provided an account this week of how government officials ignored or played down his reports of the torture of Afghan detainees.

On Thursday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay called his testimony "not credible."

"What we're talking about here is not only hearsay, we're talking about basing much of his evidence on what the Taliban have been specifically instructed to lie about if captured," MacKay said of Colvin's information.
Colvin has been promoted to a senior intelligence job at the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C., since his time in Afghanistan.

His treatment recalls the public lashing given to another senior bureaucrat, Linda Keen, who drew the wrath of government ministers.

The former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission was fired after she insisted on keeping the Chalk River nuclear facility closed for safety fears.

At the time, Canada was facing a serious shortage of medical isotopes because of the shutdown and the government had ordered her to reopen the station.

A private letter written by then-Natural Resources minister Gary Lunn questioning Keen's judgment was leaked to an Ottawa newspaper. And in the Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the longtime bureaucrat as a Liberal appointee.

"I joined the public service in fact when there was another government in power. I am saying that I am non-partisan," Keen told a special Commons meeting in December 2007, after her appointment was questioned.

"I serve with good behaviour. I have met every requirement of the ethics commissioner and I do my work on a non-partisan basis and I have no political affiliation."

During the last federal election, a Conservative official used a similar partisan tactic on the father of a dead soldier.

Jim Davis had given a television interview where he questioned the government's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. A Tory aide circulated an email soon after dismissing those comments by saying Davis had supported then-Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff in the past.

The aide was suspended from the rest of the campaign. Davis' wife called the matter "despicable."

Pollster Nik Nanos says going on the offensive from the start can be remarkably effective.

"It muddies the narrative of anyone trying to criticize the government," said Nanos, who says Tories know the power of first impressions.

"It sends a signal to anyone else who's thinking of doing that, that if you're thinking of taking this government on, be prepared for a full-on offensive. It's a clear media strategy and an effective deterrent for future problems."

Other examples of people who had their credibility attacked by the Tories include:

-Journalist and author Tom Zytaruk. He was publicly accused of doctoring tapes of an interview he conducted with Harper about the late MP Chuck Cadman. Zytaruk, who wrote a book about Cadman, had asked the prime minister about whether the party had once offered Cadman money to step aside from his riding.

-Environmental activist Matthew Bramley. The climate-change director at the Pembina Institute has been dismissed as a Liberal partisan because he provided climate modelling and other advice to former Liberal governments.

-University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob, often quoted in the media, has been criticized because he donated to his local NDP candidate in the 2006 election

[praktik]

Well their tough on crime measures are enough for me to NEVER vote for em - if they ever get back to a tory conservatism maybe in the right riding with the right candidate I'd vote for em... but they've lost me for a decade.

Was thinking about my votes last night and realize I've never voted for the libs or the cons.

[Flashy_McFlash]

Yeah, Colvin's credibility is shot but Bernier is a-ok.

[Boss Hog]

Originally Posted by judge wopner

i think its shortsighted to make this a conservative specific issue, knowing that prisoners were being handed over throughout the Afghan mission

They've been in power for four years and have repeatedly denied any allegations of abuse despite evidence to the contrary floating around under their noses. They're in power; it's their issue.

[judge wopner]

Originally Posted by Boss Hog

They've been in power for four years and have repeatedly denied any allegations of abuse despite evidence to the contrary floating around under their noses. They're in power; it's their issue.

its like blaming the last guy to borrow your 7 year old car when something breaks down later on. it ignores the scores of other people and institutions that require investigation.

theres a few things at play here, allegations made by Colvin include:

1. allegations that many detainee's were in fact innocent

2. allegations that canada was arresting and handing over several times more detainee's than other NATO partners operating in similar combat zones.

3. attempts to ensure afghan authorities were treating detainees humanely were lackluster if not absent all together

4. allegations that his attempts to bring the issue to light up the chain of command were either silenced or broadly ignored through the highest ranks of the civilian and military leadership.

_______________________

any political party in power during these actions deserves blame, but the reason for my caution is that like so many other issues that are political in nature but humanitarian in execution (health care, social welfare, military aid/peacekeeping) we tend to get lost in blaming the party in charge while ignoring those who were complicit in these actions.

its a bigger picture issue but it should by no means spare the con's from blame and criticism, and the worst thing they can do at this point is not call an investigation.

back to the bigger issue: its easy for the NDP and separatists to criticize and lay blame, they were never at any time in power and posses a greater moral vantage point than the liberals who approved the mission and set the initial policy towards the CF's operational role and coordinating efforts with the newly established Afghan authorities.

the questions that i would hope get asked would be:

1. what was the policy prior to our mission with respect to the capture and detainment of suspects, and did it change when the Khandhar deployments assumed a more active combat role?

2. what is the content and quality of the soldiers reports on the ground with respect to individual suspects? the rationale or validity of detaining each suspect must also be considered on a case by case basis.

3. what did front-line soldiers understand our prisoner detainment policy and protocol to be? was it consistent across the ranks of the CF, how were senior level officers communicating the CF's policy down the chain of command?

4. This story confirms that amnesty international and the BC civil liberties association successfully lobbied the govt to change their policies towards the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities in November of 2007.

why is this not mentioned in its proper context in the governments response to their foreknowledge of Colvin's testimony? it seems as though Colvin as a lead diplomat on the ground in Afghanistan would have been intimately aware of any investigative team that confirmed allegations of mistreatment which led to a reversal of operational policy by the entire CF. But now minister Mckay is acting as if he never knew of any such allegations before hand?

5. we need to examine the complicity of the previous liberal government in setting the policy or allowing the CF to set the pace for detainment and transfer practices that set the stage for abuse, the CF itself in how they carried out and understood what was happening, and the conservatives for their continuation and covering up (or at least shadowing over) revelations by senior officials about credible allegations of abuse.

6. we cant forget about the Afghans themselves. there seems to be an attitude of acceptance and cultural malaise that anyone in Afghan custody will be mistreated and tortured and there is little we can do to affect the practice. we are tied in with their governmental structures sufficiently to call them to task on these kinds of allegations. at some point in time Canadian forces must rely on Afghan institutions be they for infrastructure or policing, if we cant transfer prisoners to them, where exactly do we house them and under what justice system do we try them if we cant trust the Afghans to do it themselves?

we called the Afghan ambassador to task when a recent law was proposed sanctioning what some considered marital rape, why not do the same over these allegations as well?

this site is a great read to put things in context:

http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org

[Boss Hog]

nothing at all to hide.

The Canadian Press: Feds bar whistleblower diplomat from handing over torture documents to MPs

[Flashy_McFlash]

Justice Department lawyers have told Colvin - through the Foreign Affairs Department - that they do not accept the view that testimony before Parliament is exempt from national security provisions of the Canada Evidence Act.

You want to talk about a slippery slope? There's your slippery slope right there.

[praktik]

have you read the bill?

[ChrisD]

Originally Posted by Flashy_McFlash

You want to talk about a slippery slope? There's your slippery slope right there.

And yet retired generals, who are now civilians have said documents. Seems a bit much.

[saskboy]

They know that torture doesn't work from research done in Latin America. The CIA hired Argentinians to train the Honduran military in the 80's. They concluded that no good timely information comes form the techniques and that the torturers start to endure severe psychological distress afterwards including suicide.

The Americans know all this. Their reasons for using torture seem to be only to widen the circle of the guilty. The left plays into this ploy every time.

[guysmiley]

Bokenfohr's letter said that government even considers testimony given to MPs behind closed doors to be subject to the blanket of national security.

The fuck? Too secret for the people to whom the Forces are accountable to?

These MP's gave the fucking mandate for the war.

The Canadian Forces isn't the private militia of the PMO.

[tripleup]

Honestly, who the fuck cares??

It's not our country, and not our laws over there.

The whole problem IMO with "western" presence in that region is expecting our standards to be upheld by our so called "partners" that we are propping up with our military.

It's a tribal culture, and to cry that the people living there aren't following international law or that we are turning the other cheek is both stupid and naive.

We should be responsible for the prisoners while they are in our care. After that, it's not our problem. Our troops are a glorified police force for our "allies", and as a result have to hand over prisoners to them. What their idea of justice and justifiable methods are, is not our concern.

[praktik]

I care.

Heard last night the Dutch proposed running a joint Dutch/English/Canadian prison.

but of course we were all too chickenshit to actually take ownership and do so. When Britain and Canada reacted in a lukewarm manner the idea just died.

But that would have been the only way to ensure proper treatment of prisoners.

[tripleup]

Originally Posted by praktik

I care.

Heard last night the Dutch proposed running a joint Dutch/English/Canadian prison.

but of course we were all too chickenshit to actually take ownership and do so. When Britain and Canada reacted in a lukewarm manner the idea just died.

But that would have been the only way to ensure proper treatment of prisoners.

So like some sort of Guantanamo Bay? (this is tongue and cheek so no need to point out the obvious via arguing)

We are a foreign military fighting on behalf of a regional group. I have no qualms with letting the local authority deal with their prisoners as they see fit.

We are holding people via proxy. They aren't really "our" prisoners, we are simply the arm that delivers them to the ruling government.

Why in the world would you want us to take full time ownership of the prisoners? Then we can't ever hand them over to the locals, and these people run the risk of becoming Canadian citizens or some sort of burden on our own system. Or worse, set free into the general population to take up arms against our soldiers and allies.

As for the Guantanamo comparison, it has to do with how they were held in limbo by the US. If we had our own POW camp over there, especially under the premise of offering the protection of Canadian and International law, it opens a huge pandora's box of rights, protections, and responsibilities that I sure as shit don't want our country to have to carry.

[guysmiley]

Notwithstanding the obvious ethical considerations, you don’t see the possible dangers, both to our troops and, for example, a packed Toronto subway station, of contributing to the disenfranchisement of the population within a country that quite possibly has the highest anti-western sentiment in the world?