Afghan prisoner abuse trial

[Gabriel]

I'll break this down all really simply, and I'm pretty confident most of us in here with agree with what I'm about to say. What needs to be evaluated in order to really understand this issue are the existing protocols in place that manage the transfer of detainees from the custody of the Canadian military to Afghan security forces. What are the existing procedures in place? What type of monitoring system is in place? How have these systems evolved over time? Basically - is the Canadian government making reasonable efforts in good faith to reduce the likelihood of abuse in Afghan prisons? If Canada has made reasonable efforts to manage this issue over time, then we aren't at fault. Has Canada received credible reports suggesting that abuses were occurring in Afghan prisons? If so, how has Canada responded? Was it a reasonable response? If Canadian officials fell short in any of these regards (when compared to reasonable standards and not to the absurd standards of ultra-leftists who want to provide Taliban terrorist detainees with correspondence education and HBO), then they should be held accountable.

I feel like the Conservative party is behaving slightly more in a damage-control mode than simply being open and honest about the issue. Tell the truth, and showcase the truth if we did right by our values. If Canada has already been implementing reasonable policies to reduce the likelihood of abuse occuring in Afghan prisons, tell us about it! MacKay has already alluded that Canada has made serious efforts in this regard, suggesting that over $100 million has already been spent towards this matter. If Canada isn't living up to its values by not making reasonable efforts to reduce the likelihood of abuse in Afghan prisons, then give all responsible officials the boot! Then address the shortcoming by implementing a new system to deal with the problem. That's called accountability. That being said, the leftist Liberal and NDP are continuing to destroy themselves in the public eye by masquerading as human rights advocates, when real Canadians see what they're really doing - attacking Canada and undermining its security in order to score political points. If this story is managed properly, it can further bolster the Conservative lead in the polls. Harper and his government need to utilize this opportunity to further trash the left's hypocrisy - it can be done. What the left doesn't realize is that it is portraying itself as being more concerned about the human rights of the Taliban than the safety and security of our soldiers, as well as the success of our mission in Afghanistan.

If managed properly, this story will advance the popularity of the Conservative party and illustrate once again how treasonous much of the left is in Canada - grandstanding for human rights at the expense of Canada's security and reputation.

[Gabriel]

One more comment - for my friends in here questioning the credibility of Colvin's testimony, I agree with you folks only to a small degree. Let's be honest, are any of you surprised that torture would be occurring in Afghani prisons? Let's not be naive and assume that Afghanistan has strong cultural values rooted in human rights. This is primarily a tribal country filled savages and barbarians. These people sell their daughter off to be married at the age of nine. That being said, of course the Taliban testimony of four detainees being passed off to us via Colvin is suspect. Our enemies have long been using our values and morality against us. They exploit our humanity. But still, the idea that abuses are occurring in Afghani prisons isn't an allegation I find hard to believe. Perhaps I'm too cynical, though.

[Peter F]

First off, I agree with the substance of your posts (how to milk this with political spin aside), If Canada is taking reasonable measures to monitor the conditions of detainee conditions then that is fine. No one is required to be super-human.

However...if the inspection/monitoring process determines that the Afghans are not fulfilling thier requirements towards the detainee's then what? Then nothing. We say tut-tut and please stop doing that and give them more money as if that absolves us of our responsibilities. Its a bullshit system.

We are at war, or so I am told, and so we must actually assume our responsibilities as a party in an armed conflict. If the Afghans cannot meet our requirements of humanitary incarceration, Then we should have the balls to assume that responsibility ourselves. We should, assuming the accounts of abuse are true, create our own prison sytstem in afghanistan, manned with our own personell, and incarcerate those we feel worthy of it in our own system under our own rules and proceedures.

Then, at least, we will be able to act when wrongs occur as opposed to the present process of pointing to someone else and saying "not our fault". The present system is the pussy answer to the problem.

[Argus]

So you believe Colvin's an enemy of Canada now?

Generally speaking, diplomats tend to hold the military in low esteem, and it is evident he felt the same way. So, no respect for the military, little understanding of what was going on, no evidence that the people he actually spoke to had been detained by Canadian soldiers, no evidence they were actually tortured either. Oh, they had scars! Shocking! Does that mean they got them by torture? Well, no, and he had no training in recognizing or identifying such injuries either.

Were things pretty rough in Afghan prisons? Hell, life is rough anywhere in Afghanistan. It has to be pretty nasty in those prisons. But then, it's pretty nasty in a Turkish prison too, or a Russian prison, or an Iranian or Egyptian prison. It's THEIR country, though, and all we did was turn their citizens over to them.

[Argus]

Peter McKay said on TV this morning that the issue of veracity regarding Colvin's reports is not a personal attack. I suppose this stands to reason given that Colvin is apparently a highly respected diplomat who received awards for his work in Afghanistan and was given a promotion to Washington.

Look for his next transfer to be the basement of a building in Omaha where he'll get to monitor the production of mess kits.

In light of the completely discredited reports that someone as respected as Colvin produced, I'm trying to imagine what exactly constitutes a source that's more credible than Colvin's.

Colvin interviewed (through an interpret) some ex-Afghan prisoners. They were eager to claim they had been tortured, but he had no actual evidence to support that. Nor did they. Nor had he the slightest experience or training in recognizing physical signs of torture - as opposed to scars of war wounds or accidents. There was no evidence any of the people he spoke to were even detained by Canadian troops. Colvin held Hillier in such disdain he never attempted to communicate with him directly - didn't like his personality, apparently. There isn't a court in this country which wouldn't laugh his "evidence" out the door.

[Argus]

So if Canada is charged with war crimes and found guilty who does the time?

I assume the senior members of the Liberal Party who decided to hand prisoners over to them in the first place, then put no monitoring in place.

[Argus]

The person(s) at the top who was in charge and permitted it.

In this case that would be the current PM and his Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs.

Wow, you know so little about so much. You don't know who actually permitted it (hint, he was a Liberal) and don't know what a war crime is any more than Colvin evidently does.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

Making sense of anything will never be the same now that the standard for evidence seems to be first hand experience.

That has ALWAYS been the standard of evidence in the abscence of any other kind evidence.

Do you wish that to be changed to "anything anyone heard from a second or third party"?

[Argus]

Good try.

You have a habit of deflecting any chance you get.

You fall on the same list as Wulf and Gabriel. The only difference is that they're honest about their obvious hatred, racism and bigotry towards 'these cats' and you, unsuccessfully, try to mask yours.

Whereas you, Eyeball and Jaysfan are obvious in your seething hatred of the military and anyone conservative, all instantly ready to accept as proven allegations made by a Liberal appointee who has no evidence to support his allegations.

As for Jaysfan, I get the impression he's one of those types that cheer every time a Canadian or allied soldier dies.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

It also begs the question of why are the Conservatives so quick to shoot down the calls for a public enquiry. What are they afraid of if they've done nothing wrong or have nothing to hide..

There is no need of a public inquiry because there is no evidence. We don't hold inquiries based on the completely unsupported - and in fact, illogical- testimony of one person.

For the most part, the only reason the opposition have latched onto this is because they have ALWAYS latched eagerly onto anything negative about Afghanistan. As someone remarked earlier, the deaths of Canadian soldiers is greeted with a yawn by the opposition, but any hint of wrongdoing by them which they can possibly blame on the Conservatives gets them all roused up, drooling excitedly and shouting across the aisle in their demands for "inquiries".

The Liberals in particular - who sent Canadians over there to fight, and, with lousy equpiment, die, immediately turned against the war as a matter of political strategy after Dion was made leader. Their every move since then has been to exploit and decry everything about the war which they feel will give them a political advantage over the governing Tories. There is no morality, or ethical judgement to it. The Liberals could not possibly care less if Afghan prisoners were tortured. They only want to score cheap political points off the tories.

[waldo]

Generally speaking, diplomats tend to hold the military in low esteem, and it is evident he felt the same way. So, no respect for the military, little understanding of what was going on, no evidence that the people he actually spoke to had been detained by Canadian soldiers, no evidence they were actually tortured either. Oh, they had scars! Shocking! Does that mean they got them by torture? Well, no, and he had no training in recognizing or identifying such injuries either.

Even though there are other credible sources that have come forward to confirm the existence of detainee abuse, the Conservatives feel they must attempt to completely discredit Colvin... someone with an impeccable reputation, someone the Conservatives previously trusted with the highest of security information/assignment. Clearly, the Conservative cover-up is in high-gear.

Don Martin: Conservatives shoot the messenger over torture allegations

In an organized smackdown rarely seen in Ottawa, the government turned inward on Thursday to attack a new enemy in its Afghanistan conflict — senior Washington embassy intelligence officer Richard Colvin.

After 15 years of steadily rising through the foreign service ranks, Mr. Colvin now stands accused of being a Taliban stooge, someone so easily duped by torture complaints that he shredded his diplomatic reputation by passing along their accusations.

Mr. Colvin became fodder for such accusations the minute he told MPs that a full year of warnings about detainee torture had been ignored at the highest levels of the military and public service.

He even hinted at tentative, but unproven, connections to the government itself. That made his testimony very, very dangerous — and that’s why the Conservatives have launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Colvin.

But it faces a big problem.

Every action by this government to date has only enhanced the diplomat’s credibility.

Mr. Colvin was promoted to the Washington job under a Conservative reign after 16 years of unblemished duty in hotspots like Sri Lanka, Russia, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. While serving in Kandahar, he was told his insights were too sensitive to be put in writing, he says. His emails have been declared off limits on national security grounds. And he’s been told to shut up on this file or risk being charged under the Canada Evidence Act.

Those actions all speak to the significance and sensitivity of his input, not the ramblings of a rogue diplomat spreading stories from his imagination.

[PocketRocket]

After reading through about 8 pages of this thread, I got too lazy to continue with the reading as by that point the thread had strayed well off-topic.

However, up to that point no one had addressed this.......

From a link provided (I believe) by Gabriel........

Colvin's testimony "seemed dramatic, but under questioning it was revealed to be flimsy, inconsistent, unreliable," Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay told CBC News. "[He] did not come across as credible."

While he didn't doubt Colvin's sincerity, "every time something has happened in that mission, we have taken action," Hawn said. "And that's evidenced by the improvements in the prison, the training we've done, money we've invested, the visits we've had organized with the various authorities there."

Colvin also said he only spoke to four detainees himself and he had no way to guarantee those prisoners had in fact been captured by Canadian troops.

A report which was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable".

Colvin himself admitting that he only spoke with 4 detainees, and did not even know if they had been captured by Canadian troops.

Sounds like this Colvin guy is simply out to make a reputation for himself.

What are our troops supposed to do with the captured enemy or those suspected to be enemies???

Is there some sort of agreement between Canada and the Afghan authorities obliging our boys to hand over those that we've captured???

[Argus]

Even though there are other credible sources that have come forward to confirm the existence of detainee abuse,

That, of course, is not the point. The point is that his superiors, the people he contacted in the various organizations he emailed, had no justification for taking action based on his emails.

[Keepitsimple]

Give me a set of Black and Decker power tools, 36 hours and Colvin. I will get him to tell you his sources.

I always have to chuckle at your humour.....and at the self-righteous attitudes of some of these posters. Of course it was known that Afghans were not the best prison guards and in signing the Afghanistan Compact, we all helped put them on the road to better institutions - including managing their prisions and changing their Human Rights culture. We KNEW there'd be problems and as Rick Hillier said - it was and is an incredibly difficult task. So we put monitoring procedures in place, used the Afghans' own human rights monitors and the Red Cross, learned as we went along, tightened things up and eventually got the whole process working reasonably well. Did some prisoners get tortured? Not proven but very, very likely. Did our military knowingly transfer prisoners into the arms of torture? Not very likely at all....in fact, there was at least one story of Canadian soldiers taking BACK prisoners because they received information that they were not being treated properly. This whole torture "story" is a media-driven smear upon our military - The Star overtly calling them WAR CRIMES for heaven's sake. Get a grip - this is war in a third world country where we are making every effort to help them build institutions - to introduce Human Rights. Is it so difficult to comprehend that short of building our own off-shore Guantanamo Bay, we have to work with the Afghans to manage their prisons at a standard that is acceptable to the international community? Where is the outrage against Iran and Syria who continue to this day to apply torture on a regular basis?

Edited November 21, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

A report which was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable".

If it was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable" in 2006... why was it suddenly "solid, consistent and reliable" in 2007? If there were no problems... no concerns over detainee abuse, why was the 2005/2006 initiated detainee transfer program stopped... the agreement signed by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier? If there were no problems... no concerns over detainee abuse, why was a new detainee transfer agreement put in place by the Conservatives?

Colvin’s testimony, if nothing else, validates the Conservative actions in reforming the detainee transfer program... however, it also raises serious questions that have driven the Conservatives into full-blown cover-up mode - who knew what when, and why did the Conservative government take so long to act.

The necessary detainee transfer reforms have been put in place... the real issue surfacing is the Conservative cover-up, and the direct attempts to impede Colvin's actions and suppress his reports.

[JaysFan]

Typical Conservative pattern and practice adopted from the Republicans:Don't like the message, then we'll attempt to discredit and smear the reputation of the messenger.Unfortunately, for Harper and Mackay, they've just been caught again and reprimanded by the Speaker for spreading lies about anti-Semitism and in this case, the diplomat has a spotless career. Canadians don't take kindly to Con-artists like Mackay and Harper.

Amazing how under a Liberal government the Conservatives took every word uttered by a whistle blower as gospel but now categorize anyone who tells tales of the Harper regime as traitors to the cause.This man Colvin gains nothing but stands the chance of ruining his career by stepping forward. Yet the Conservatives supporters continue to slander him. Pathetic...It's no wonder you all like to harp about the Taliban so much. You have so much in common

Edited November 21, 2009 by JaysFan

[eyeball]

Think about this naomi. Here's a guy, Colvin, who drops a bomb that he knows will cause chaos not only in Parliament, but for our military on the ground in Afghanistan. And, he refuses to name the sources that led him to conclude that "all" detainees transferred by our military were subjected to torture by Afghan jail keepers. Let me reiterate that Mr. Colvin is presenting a personal conclusion of findings based on some sources that he insists on keeping secret. Why is he protecting those sources? His case would have more credibility if he was willing to name his sources so that their authenticity could be examined.

I am way more concerned about the impact of this on our military than on any politician or bureaucrat. Politicians and bureaucrats come and go but the reputation of our military outlives them. For this reason alone we must get to the bottom of this. I am not endorsing a public enquiry. We'll get nowhere unless Colvin divulges his sources.

I agree. Could it be that Colvin's sources include someone in the Liberal Party? We don't know because Colvin won't tell us.

I am in full agreement that Colvin should divulge his sources but I also think this has to take place within the scope of a full judicial inquiry. I am far more concerned about the impact this will have on the people of Canada. There is nothing that will put us in the path of retribution and revenge and harm's way faster than the perception our government has been committing war crimes.

Its bad enough being allied with countries that subscribe to torture but actively participating in the process represents a descent to the sort of low that should have our grandfathers and great-grandfathers spinning in their graves. I honestly believe things are getting to the point that Canada will require some sort of activist resistance movement to bring our state to heel.

[Alta4ever]

Canadians don't take kindly to Con-artists like Mackay and Harper.

When did you start to speak for all Canadians?

Do you have prove of what you allege or are you just slandering. I think it is more of the later.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think it is safe to say that nail one has been found. I guess it depends on how many more nails are found, and who and how the hammer is used.

[capricorn]

Did our military knowingly transfer prisoners into the arms of torture? Not very likely at all....in fact, there was at least one story of Canadian soldiers taking BACK prisoners because they received information that they were not being treated properly. This whole torture "story" is a media-driven smear upon our military - The Star overtly calling them WAR CRIMES for heaven's sake. Get a grip - this is war in a third world country where we are making every effort to help them build institutions - to introduce Human Rights.

This piece by Michael Byers is a perfect example of rendering an indictment before all the facts are known.

‘Elements of a war crime seem to be present’

According to UBC’s laws of war expert, Canadian officials may be in breach of the Geneva Convention

---

The actual facts are still emerging, but all the elements of a war crime seem to be present. The prohibition of torture ranks with the prohibitions of genocide and slavery as one of the most fundamental rules of international law. Torture—and complicity in torture—is a “grave breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. If Canadian officials allowed detainees to be transferred to Afghan custody despite an apparent risk of torture, and chose not to take reasonable steps to protect them, they are as guilty of a war crime as the torturers themselves. They could be prosecuted in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Or they could be hauled before the International Criminal Court. Canada has ratified the ICC’s statute, giving it jurisdiction over Canadians who commit war crimes anywhere. However, the International Criminal Court will not intervene if Canadian officials are willing and able to investigate and prosecute. We must hope that the will to investigate and prosecute is present. For imagine the damage to Canada’s reputation and influence if a general, ambassador or cabinet minister was prosecuted for war crimes in The Hague.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/20/elements-of-a-war-crime-seem-to-be-present/

In 2006, Byers tried to have the International Criminal Court investigate Hillier and O'Connor for war crimes. Nothing came of it. He is now exploring other ways to push his agenda. You can read his letter in the following link.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/04/27/WarCrime/

Here's one source the special committee has yet to hear from.

Michel Gauthier

Position: Retired lieutenant-general who was the former commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command. Gauthier was responsible for all of the Canadian Forces' overseas missions. He ran Canada's military mission in Kandahar from his Ottawa headquarters. Colvin says he sent some of his memos to Gauthier.

Response to Colvin's testimony: In an email to CBC News, Gauthier said the following:

"First of all let me say I am deeply troubled by Mr. Colvin's testimony before the Special Committee. It's pretty clear, from what he said yesterday, that he has for some time had a deep-seated concern about Govt of Canada practices regarding detainees. I look forward to providing an absolutely frank view of some key aspects of Mr. Colvin's testimony when I appear before the committee next week.

"In the meantime, I simply want to assure you and all Canadians that, in my capacity as Commander of CEFCOM, I very clearly understood my responsibilities under international law with respect to the handling of detainees, and I would certainly not knowingly have done anything — ever — to expose our soldiers and commanders in the field, our government, or myself to complicity in war crimes or other wrongdoing as Mr. Colvin suggests. I can also say with complete confidence that personnel under my command were not in the habit, as a matter of either policy or practice, of ignoring important reports from the field, quite the opposite. In light of our potential liability as commanders under international law, one would have to ask why any of us would knowingly and deliberately ignore substantial evidence from the field that could ultimately implicate us in a war crime.

"I applaud Mr. Colvin's courage in coming forward, but there will evidently be more than one side to this story. "

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/20/f-afghan-detainees-colvin-whoswho.html

It's astonishing that so many would accuse the military and the politicians of war crimes and conclude of their guilt without having heard from other witnesses. They are oblivious to the damage they are inflicting on our international reputation and the integrity of our military. Those joining the bandwagon simply based on a hatred of Conservatives don't realize this harm will outlive the present government.

[capricorn]

Its bad enough being allied with countries that subscribe to torture but actively participating in the process represents a descent to the sort of low that should have our grandfathers and great-grandfathers spinning in their graves. I honestly believe things are getting to the point that Canada will require some sort of activist resistance movement to bring our state to heel.

Melodrama is your forte.

[eyeball]

What the left doesn't realize is that it is portraying itself as being more concerned about the human rights of the Taliban than the safety and security of our soldiers, as well as the success of our mission in Afghanistan.

What a crock of shit.

What the right doesn't realize is that by not making any human being's rights the paramount issue we sell out our principles and become no better than the enemy.

If managed properly, this story will advance the popularity of the Conservative party and illustrate once again how treasonous much of the left is in Canada - grandstanding for human rights at the expense of Canada's security and reputation.

This kinda suggests where your real priorities are.

[eyeball]

I assume the senior members of the Liberal Party who decided to hand prisoners over to them in the first place, then put no monitoring in place.

That works for me too.

Edited November 21, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Look for his next transfer to be the basement of a building in Omaha where he'll get to monitor the production of mess kits.

Colvin interviewed (through an interpret) some ex-Afghan prisoners. They were eager to claim they had been tortured, but he had no actual evidence to support that. Nor did they. Nor had he the slightest experience or training in recognizing physical signs of torture - as opposed to scars of war wounds or accidents. There was no evidence any of the people he spoke to were even detained by Canadian troops. Colvin held Hillier in such disdain he never attempted to communicate with him directly - didn't like his personality, apparently. There isn't a court in this country which wouldn't laugh his "evidence" out the door.

Canadians need to know if Colvin is full of shit just as much as they need to know if everything he says is true. I'm surprised Conservatives aren't demanding an inquiry too. According to you its the Liberals that should be held up for war crimes. Either way don't you want to know?

Edited November 21, 2009 by eyeball

[d4dev]

What a crock of shit.

What the right doesn't realize is that by not making any human being's rights the paramount issue we sell out our principles and become no better than the enemy.

Being morally better than your enemy doesn't win wars.