The Afgan Documents - The Government Responds

[bloodyminded]

Oh I agree. That's why torture should be done in secret and afterwards the suspect disposed of in a deep pit of lime.

Fortunately, I strongly doubt you are the moral degenerate you pretend to be here.

[eyeball]

And what would your remedy be?

A remedy? We can't even determine what the problem is yet. I'd do that by calling a spade a spade. Our government is behaving no better than some of the assholes we call allies.

That's what the Loyal Opposition should be saying but I don't think it's any more loyal to our principles than you are to democracy to tell you the truth. Otherwise the reasons why the government is hiding the Afghan documents would be just as important as how they're hiding them.

In light of other related discussions with you I expect your remedy for the how would amount to going backward to some imagined point in time where Canada is supposed to have been more democratic. If it was that democratic then it should have prevented us from ending up where we are now.

As for me I'd either put all Parliamentary votes to the people directly or impose some sort of direct ban or prohibition against whipped voting.

[ToadBrother]

A remedy? We can't even determine what the problem is yet. I'd do that by calling a spade a spade. Our government is behaving no better than some of the assholes we call allies.

That's what the Loyal Opposition should be saying but I don't think it's any more loyal to our principles than you are to democracy to tell you the truth. Otherwise the reasons why the government is hiding the Afghan documents would be just as important as how they're hiding them.

In light of other related discussions with you I expect your remedy for the how would amount to going backward to some imagined point in time where Canada is supposed to have been more democratic. If it was that democratic then it should have prevented us from ending up where we are now.

As for me I'd either put all Parliamentary votes to the people directly or impose some sort of direct ban or prohibition against whipped voting.

Ah, forgive me. I forgot I wasn't talking to a sensible person, but rather just an incurable malcontent.

[eyeball]

Ah, forgive me. I forgot I wasn't talking to a sensible person, but rather just an incurable malcontent.

I'm reminded of this line from Braveheart.

You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better.

[M.Dancer]

I'm reminded of this line from Braveheart.

I'm reminded of this line from Trainspotting.

Youse gobshite

[Keepitsimple]

Really? Does it have to be black and white like that? Can someone be opposed to capital punishment in most cases, yet consider it for very special circumstances?

What about abortion, can someone support abortion, yet oppose it for some circumstances...say after the 6th month?

And why can't someone be mostly opposed to torture, yet consider 'harsh' interogation techniques allowable...even as the definitions of torture are in flux...or be opposed to torture, mostly, except for the most urgent reasons?

And as far as acid goes,,,I am definately against acid in the faces of girls..but would many give a second thought about acid being flung into the faces of those who toss acid?

Such common sense is unsettling for some people. They don't feel comfortable having to defend their self-righteousness.

[eyeball]

I'm reminded of this line from Trainspotting.

I think we can probably all be accused of naively believing we live in a real democracy that's worthy of the name.

[Keepitsimple]

Intersting reading for the open-minded. I don't recall hearing much of this in the papers over the last few days. Surely this on-the-ground report has as much weight as Richard Colvin's second and third hand testimony.

Detainees were delighted to be transferred from Canadian to Afghan prisons

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

A Canadian military police officer testified that suspected Taliban insurgents seemed "delighted" to be transferred from Canadian custody at Kandahar Airfield to prisons run by Afghan security services, testimony which would seem to run counter to suggestions that the transferred insurgents faced certain torture in Aghan prisons.

OTTAWA Through much of 2007, Canadian Forces military police officer Sgt. Carol Utton personally witnessed the transfer of dozens of suspected Taliban insurgents from the Canadian base at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities who would take them to the harsh conditions of Afghan prisons.

A House of Commons committee has heard testimony from senior diplomats at Foreign Affairs that, at the time of the transfers, witnessed by Sgt. Utton, torture of suspected Taliban insurgents in those Afghan-controlled prisons was widespread and common.

And yet, in testimony given to the Military Police Complaints Commission on Tuesday, Utton said the transferred detainees seemed delighted to be turned over to the Afghans. One was even upset when Afghan authorities refused to take him into custody over concerns about his medical condition.

And if there were credible allegations of torture and abuse in Afghan prisons, those reports never made it to her or the rank and file based at Kandahar Airfield, Utton testified.

Moreover, she said that Red Cross officials who had access to Afghan prisons and regularly visited them were frequently present at the detainee holding facility on the Canadian base and neither they nor any other diplomat told her or other members of the military police unit charged with guarding the detainees that they had concerns about the way detainees were treated upon their transfer to the Afghans.

While in Afghanistan and afterward, she said she was aware of unsubstantiated rumours of torture, information that was being published in Canadian newspapers at the time. But she said those rumours were hardly top-of-mind for those in theatre.

We might have discussed it, Hey, look at what the paper wrote. That was about it, Utton testified. I didnt think about that. I was surviving day by day out there.

Uttons testimony only came to light late Wednesday night even though she provided it to the commission on Tuesday.

The MPCC is investigating allegations by Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association that Canadian military police aided and abetted the torture of detainees by transferring them to Afghan authorities despite credible reports of torture.

Utton is not a subject of the complaint but some of her colleagues are and, though the proceeding before the MPCC is not a trial, Amnestys lawyer voiced concerns that Utton and other witnesses may have been pressured or coerced into shaping their testimony. Lawyers for the military police rejected that claim and, in any event, that argument was left unresolved Tuesday but is likely to resurface later.

Reporters and others were barred from the hearing room Tuesday and will not be allowed back in until Thursday. They were given no reason for the closed testimony.

The decision to close the hearing room during Uttons testimony is all the more curious because the commission itself released late Wednesday a complete, uncensored 160-page transcript of her testimony and other proceedings from Tuesdays proceedings at the commission. Utton was the only witness to be deposed on Tuesday.

Utton had been a military police officer for about a decade when she first arrived in Afghanistan in February, 2007. One of her duties, while there, was to receive detainees captured in the field by Canadian soldiers; process their paperwork; and see to it that they were locked up in what she described as a transfer facility.

After the paperwork was done, Utton would personally notify the Red Cross in Kabul or Kandahar about the detainees capture and condition. The detainees family was also notified of their capture.

Then, usually within a day or two, the detainee would be released or would be transferred into the custody of Afghan authorities. Again, Utton was personally involved with the transfer of many of the detainees.

But once the Afghans had the detainee, Utton and other military police had no responsibility or even interest in the welfare of their former prisoners. She testified that, so far as she was aware, there was never any order or training for military police to take an interest in or to inspect conditions in Afghan prisons.

Indeed, military police had little cause for concern because the about-to-be transferred detainees themselves appeared to look forward to being in Afghan custody.

Some of them seemed quite delighted, Utton said in response to questioning by commission counsel Ron Lunau.

In fact, she described to the commission how upset one detainee was when Afghan authorities refused to take him and he was forced to stay in Canadian custody.

The detainee had suffered severe medical complications after his IED exploded on him and he was quite injured by the time the transfer was to be made, Utton said. The (Afghans) were going to refuse because (Canadian media reports) said that the (Afghan) jail is filthy and the (Afghans) did not want to be blamed for anything that might happen to this detainee. And it took a lot of convincing that he was medically fit to be transferred. And the (Afghans) did take him at the time, but they had reservations.

Utton then said that the Afghan official who was in charge of receiving Canadian-captured detainees told her that Canadian papers lie about torture allegations.

And he was quite indignant about what was written in the media, Utton said.

Amnesty lawyer Paul Champ asked Utton if she ever heard rumours while she was in Afghanistan about the use of electric shock and beatings of detainees in Afghan prisons.

It certainly never filtered down to the rank and file, she replied.

Asked point-blank if she ever had a concern about the welfare of a detainee who was being transferred out of her facility and into an Afghan prison. She replied, Never.

She also testified that Red Cross officials came to her facility all the time and that no one from that organization ever mentioned to her that there were problems in the Afghan prison.

And, in fact, Utton said the only time she was personally aware of mistreatment of detainees was at her own facility at the Kandahar Airfield. She seemed to suggest that the mistreatment was indirectly caused by a court action back in Canada launched by Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

When those two groups first launched their court action on abuse allegations in the spring of 2007, the military responded by suspending all transfers of prisoners from the Canadian facility at Kandahar to the Afghans. For several weeks, until a new transfer protocol could be established as a result of the court action, Afghan detainees were kept in the Canadian facility that Utton testified was not designed to hold prisoners for more than few days.

She said the transfer facility was extremely hot, so much so that she was concerned about the mental well-being of the detainee.

.....snip

But, Utton said, (there was) the order ... that there would be no transfers or release because of the ongoing court action in Canada.

Link: http://news.globaltv.com/world/Detainees+delighted+transfer+from+Canadian+Afghan+prisons+Testimony/2775360/story.html

Edited April 13, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Born Free]

Intersting reading for the open-minded. I don't recall hearing much of this in the papers over the last few days. Surely this on-the-ground report has as much weight as Richard Colvin's second and third hand testimony.

But once the Afghans had the detainee, Utton and other military police had no responsibility — or even interest — in the welfare of their former prisoners. She testified that, so far as she was aware, there was never any order or training for military police to take an interest in or to inspect conditions in Afghan prisons.

Utton's testimony offers nothing other than she transferred prisoners and wasnt part of any follow up program to see how they were being treated. It actually reenforces much of Colvin's assertions.

[Born Free]

Oh I agree. That's why torture should be done in secret and afterwards the suspect disposed of in a deep pit of lime.

You and Hillier seem to be of the same mould....

[Bonam]

Let me put it this way....

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to support torture. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

-IMO there is no argument that would make the case to condone the burning of girls faces. You are either for it or against it. If you try to make an argument on its behalf, then you must be for it.

Born Free, this is all may be true but you are simply ignoring the issue of HOW wrong something is. Let me put it this way:

Theft is wrong and should be punished.

Murder is wrong and should be punished.

Which is more wrong, and should thus be punished more strongly? Our society has a pretty strong consensus that murder is worse, and it is thus, in general, punished much more harshly.

That is exactly the relationship between torture and burning off girls faces. Both are generally wrong. But burning off girls faces is a lot worse than torturing terrorists.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

Edited April 14, 2010 by Bonam

[DrGreenthumb]

Born Free, this is all may be true but you are simply ignoring the issue of HOW wrong something is. Let me put it this way:

Theft is wrong and should be punished.

Murder is wrong and should be punished.

Which is more wrong, and should thus be punished more strongly? Our society has a pretty strong consensus that murder is worse, and it is thus, in general, punished much more harshly.

That is exactly the relationship between torture and burning off girls faces. Both are generally wrong. But burning off girls faces is a lot worse than torturing terrorists.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

What if they think WE are the terrorists? Is it okay for them to torture our guys too? because our invading their country is more wrong to them than their torturing us for being there? Are the local farmers and citizens, who think they are fighting off invaders terrorists? How do we know who is taliban? How many innocent people have suffered through untold horrors, been tortured and murdered? What is an acceptable number of innocents that can be tortured and murdered along with the "terrorists", after we turn them over? This whole affair is a giant stain on our nation.

Edited April 14, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Bonam]

What if they think WE are the terrorists? Is it okay for them to torture our guys too?

Can you read? Hello?

[DrGreenthumb]

Can you read? Hello?

I can read fine thanks. Torture can't be justified. If some other country invaded Canada and assured me that their way of life is much better than mine and they were going use their military to force Canadians to adopt THEIR values instead, I would take up arms and fight to the death. Would that make me a terrorist? If another coountry's military demanded access to my house or thought they were going to take one of my family member in for "questioning", I would try my best not to allow that to happen. If I found out that my family had been taken somewhere tortured and interogated I would probably really hate those soldiers, and be looking for a way strike back.

I'm not some bleeding heart either, I'm not even against battlefield executions, or the immediate execution of a confirmed eye-witnessed acid thrower. To maintain any high moral ground though the execution should be a gunshot to the head, quick and painless as possible. I mean I can certainly see the appeal to slowly chopping up the bad guy, while he dies a slow agonizing death, a la Law Abiding Citizen, with Gerrard Bultler. I can admit that there are some that I think DESERVE to suffer, but that does not make carrying out such fantasies, or helping other to do it for me, acceptable or moral.

[Bonam]

I can read fine thanks. Torture can't be justified.

Apparently you can't read fine. For example, you haven't been able to figure out that my post was not justifying torture. It said in plain English that torture is wrong.

[eyeball]

Born Free, this is all may be true but you are simply ignoring the issue of HOW wrong something is. Let me put it this way:

Theft is wrong and should be punished.

Murder is wrong and should be punished.

Which is more wrong, and should thus be punished more strongly? Our society has a pretty strong consensus that murder is worse, and it is thus, in general, punished much more harshly.

That is exactly the relationship between torture and burning off girls faces. Both are generally wrong. But burning off girls faces is a lot worse than torturing terrorists.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

It's not as simple as that. Both are also generally ignorant things to do but our's is supposed to be the more developed and mature society in terms of what is right and wrong, we should know better than to commit either act. In a court of law we'd be more like adults and they'd be more like children. As such this should make our actions much worse than you've allowed for.

[Born Free]

Born Free, this is all may be true but you are simply ignoring the issue of HOW wrong something is. Let me put it this way:

Theft is wrong and should be punished.

Murder is wrong and should be punished.

Which is more wrong, and should thus be punished more strongly? Our society has a pretty strong consensus that murder is worse, and it is thus, in general, punished much more harshly.

That is exactly the relationship between torture and burning off girls faces. Both are generally wrong. But burning off girls faces is a lot worse than torturing terrorists.

Is that simple enough for you to grasp?

Unlike your note, I'll try not to insult you.

I have previously offered 6 solid reasons why our Canadian government and Canadian military policy and practices must follow the Geneva Convention. Six reasons as ascribed by a retired Col. that make perfect sense.

This isnt about what crime is more wrong than another crime. This is about what is right.

Cheers,

[Topaz]

The lawyers for the government have a firewall up as far as handing over the documents that are required. The more the government stalls on this the more they look guilty. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100420/national/afghan_cda_prisoners

[g_bambino]

I think we can probably all be accused of naively believing we live in a real democracy that's worthy of the name.

"We all" being a euphemism for "everybody but me", of course.

[g_bambino]

In short, the Government is in violation of the Constitution, has shown a flagrant disregard for ancients rights and privileges of the supreme legislative body in our country, and, even if it causes substantial damage to our troops and our allies, cannot justify such a breach.

And here John Ibbitson covers the matter:

Who wields ultimate power: Parliament or the Prime Minister? Canadians are about to find out.

Either Thursday or next week, House Speaker Peter Milliken will rule on whether Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is in contempt of Parliament.

If Mr. Milliken finds in favour of the opposition parties that made the claim, then thousands of pages of heavily censored documents could be made public, showing whether the government and armed forces knew they were sending detainees to be tortured in Afghan jails.

If he rules in favour of the government, an already powerful executive will grow yet more powerful.

And he quotes a constitutional scholar as saying:

If the Speaker rules against the opposition motions, it would not be too hyperbolic to say we have changed our system of governance... The executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons.

[wyly]

The lawyers for the government have a firewall up as far as handing over the documents that are required. The more the government stalls on this the more they look guilty. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100420/national/afghan_cda_prisoners

now the UK is going through the same process with government stalling on handing over their documents regarding detainees turned over for torture...if the Brits hand over the documents the pressure on the conservatives here will be enormous to do the same...

Edited April 21, 2010 by wyly

[ToadBrother]

now the UK is going through the same process with government stalling on handing over their documents regarding detainees turned over for torture...if the Brits hand over the documents the pressure on the conservatives here will be enormous to do the same...

The current Labour government is a majority government. In effect the issue of Parliamentary privilege doesn't really come up. Since the government controls the committees, it can ultimately control what questions are asked of it. Labour's only real problem all along has been a faction of the party that is rather anti-war, so it is always conceivable that a caucus revolt could do them some harm.

Now, perhaps after the election, if Labour ends up governing a hung parliament, we may see identical fireworks, but until then the situation isn't really analogous.

(Mind you, the latest polls suggest, of all things, the Liberal Democrats are actually in the lead over Labour and the Tories. It would be like the NDP somehow forming a minority government in the next election.)

Edited April 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

The current Labour government is a majority government. In effect the issue of Parliamentary privilege doesn't really come up. Since the government controls the committees, it can ultimately control what questions are asked of it. Labour's only real problem all along has been a faction of the party that is rather anti-war, so it is always conceivable that a caucus revolt could do them some harm.

Now, perhaps after the election, if Labour ends up governing a hung parliament, we may see identical fireworks, but until then the situation isn't really analogous.

(Mind you, the latest polls suggest, of all things, the Liberal Democrats are actually in the lead over Labour and the Tories. It would be like the NDP somehow forming a minority government in the next election.)

my impression is there is considerable evidence already available that the Brits have knowingly handed over detainees for torture which puts them under more pressure than our government...if the Liberal Democrats were to win even a minority would they continue to try supress the evidence or release it to bury Labour...

[ToadBrother]

my impression is there is considerable evidence already available that the Brits have knowingly handed over detainees for torture which puts them under more pressure than our government...if the Liberal Democrats were to win even a minority would they continue to try supress the evidence or release it to bury Labour...

Well things get kind of complicated there. What an opposition party says it would do if in government, or at least what it demands of government, will often change the moment they become a government (witness Chretien's GST flip-flop). So who can predict if demands to end the stonewalling wouldn't become stonewalling if they achieved power?? The other aspect, particular to the Lib Dems is that Labour would be the most natural ally for them if they were to govern in a hung parliament (minority government), much as if the NDP were to form a minority government here they would find their best chances of governing via co-operation with the Liberals.

My hunch is that the Lib Dems won't form a government. It will either be Labour or the Tories. A new Labour government clearly would be looking for ways to prevent release of embarrassing documents, and the Tories (like our Tories) tend to be much more pro-military and hawkish, and while they've long attacked Labour over its own foreign adventures, have never come off as that sincere (in other words, they're just critical because they're the Opposition). They might view the prisoner transfer issue much as some Tories in Canada do, as an attack on the military.

Edited April 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

"We all" being a euphemism for "everybody but me", of course.

Are you kidding? If I knew then what I knew now...I'd never have gotten into industries that are so reliant on open honest governance.

I've pointed out for example that fishing and logging communities are like canaries in a coal mine and why so many are dropping like flies, but people like you still naively defend our government as if you believed it was an open honest democracy still worthy of the name. It's not, ask just about anyone who's livelihood directly depends on it.

If our government doesn't have the moral and ethical background for honesty right here at home there's no way on Earth it has the right stuff for interfering in other people's countries.