A Different Take on the Afghan Detainee Issue

[Keepitsimple]

The worm has turned. Anyone who's been following the "Detainee Issue" knows full well that if there are any willful mis-doings - and that is doubtful - then it started with the Liberals. It's amazing that the Libs have had a free ride so far and even with Bill Graham's testimony yesterday, the outrage that has been heaped on the Conservatives has not been transferred to the Libs. This, in spite of the fact that the Libs were responsible for detainees until 2006....and it was only after the Conservatives took power that the detainee agreement was upgraded to include the safeguards that other countries had put in place. So lets recap - the Libs sign a deal in December 2005 with no safeguards based on the fact that they have no information about torture and trust the Afghans to do their job. The Conservatives take power and reports of torture happen to pop out - and of course it's all the fault of those mean Conservatives and what do they do about it as quickly as diplomacy and foreign affairs can work? Why they upgrade the Agreement to what it should have been in the first place to protect against potential abuse - if not torture. But I digress - here are some of Mr. Graham's own words from his recent testimony (my bold):

Former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham is acknowledging an agreement signed under his watch to protect detainees handed to rough Afghan jailers was flawed and should have included better follow-up monitoring for torture.

Mr. Grahams appearance before the Commons committee probing the detainee controversy Wednesday marked the first time a high-ranking member of the former Liberal government agreed to talk to MPs about its role in setting up the problem-plagued handover process.

The ex-defence ministers testimony which dwelled on late 2005 as Canada shifted into deadly southern Afghanistan painted a picture of a country thrust into a situation with which it had little previous experience.

Back then, Canada was embarking on the biggest military deployment since Korea and was about to start collecting captives at a rate it had not expected.

I think its fair to say the military leadership at the time did not foresee the number of prisoners that were going to be taken, Mr. Graham told MPs.

He said the Liberal government trusted that Afghan authorities would abide by their word to treat detainees in accordance with the third Geneva Convention on prisoners of war.

Canada signed a deal to hand over battlefield captives to the Afghans in December, 2005, even as the Liberal government was preoccupied by an election campaign it would shortly lose. The Harper government inherited this agreement and 15 months later, facing allegations of detainee torture, renegotiated it to give Canada rights to track transferred prisoners.

Mr. Grahams testimony doesnt absolve the Harper government of charges it turned a blind eye to torture for transfers in 2006 and beyond. But it does demonstrate how difficult a task subsequent Canadian governments have faced in handling suspects rounded up while fighting in a foreign nation at war with an insurgency.

We did our best in the circumstances in the light of the knowledge we had in the day and thats the best you can do, Mr. Graham told MPs.

He refused to pronounce on the political debate raging in 2010 whether Canadian authorities knowingly transferred detainees to torture saying thats a question that should properly be settled by an independent judge in a court.

But he said its safe to assume detainees have been mistreated given reports that have emerged.

The former Liberal minister said it wasnt evident to his government that prisoners faced a substantial risk of torture by Afghan jailers.

You can't be responsible for what you don't know about. It's not an absolute responsibility.

Mr. Graham said in 2005 Canada felt it was enough to rely on third parties to keep tabs on the health of prisoners a system that was later proven a failure.

We had very limited experience with prisoners … and so while we were aware the Afghan prison system was not perfect in fact was wanting in many respects we had no reason to believe that they would not be capable of treating prisoners in accordance with the international humanitarian obligations set out in the agreement.

He acknowledged that other NATO allies from the very beginning had arranged to do their own monitoring of transferred prisoners something absent from Canadas 2005 deal.

It is true, this agreement lacked a right to follow [up on] prisoners something contained in other agreements, Mr. Graham said.

This agreement was criticized for that and with hindsight it could have contained such a provision which the present government, in its wisdom, added.

Separately, opposition MPs say a deal that would let them view secret Afghan detainee documents is within reach by the end of day Thursday.

In response to a ruling two weeks ago by House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken, the government and opposition originally were given two weeks to reach an agreement by Tuesday that would let MPs view classified records in private. They've been granted an extension until Friday after failing to reach an agreement by Tuesday.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deal-to-protect-detainees-is-flawed-former-liberal-defence-minister-says/article1567062/?cmpid=rss1

Edited May 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[bloodyminded]

The worm has turned. Anyone who's been following the "Detainee Issue" knows full well that if there are any willful mis-doings - and that is doubtful - then it started with the Liberals. It's amazing that the Libs have had a free ride so far and even with Bill Graham's testimony yesterday, the outrage that has been heaped on the Conservatives has not been transferred to the Libs. This, in spite of the fact that the Libs were responsible for detainees until 2006....and it was only after the Conservatives took power that the detainee agreement was upgraded to include the safeguards that other countries had put in place. So lets recap - the Libs sign a deal in December 2005 with no safeguards based on the fact that they have no information about torture and trust the Afghans to do their job. The Conservatives take power and reports of torture happen to pop out - and of course it's all the fault of those mean Conservatives and what do they do about it as quickly as diplomacy and foreign affairs can work? Why they upgrade the Agreement to what it should have been in the first place to protect against potential abuse - if not torture. But I digress - here are some of Mr. Graham's own words from his recent testimony (my bold):

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deal-to-protect-detainees-is-flawed-former-liberal-defence-minister-says/article1567062/?cmpid=rss1

Of course the Liberals share responsibility.

And of course there have been wilful misdoings.

Unless our top military Commander is lying, to make Canada look bad. Quite a theory.

[Natchuck]

Perhaps apochryphal, but a valid attitude in any case:

a City Councilor from Newcastle, Australia, was

asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the

allegations of torture of suspected Taliban terrorists.

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to

thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a

car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save

just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say, Red is

Positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

Edited May 14, 2010 by Natchuck

[Muddy]

I sometimes wonder why our guys take prisoners! Run out of ammunition? It is a good thing we didn`t have this kind of scrutiny in WW2 or we would probably have lost to the AXIS powers. Bad things happen in fog of war . Especially when the other side does not wear a uniform. Mean while those condemning our Lads as war criminals ,how come I don`t hear you chastising the enemy as war criminals for how they treat prisoners ,military or civilian? Whoops! I forgot they torture then chop their heads off as infidels.No problem ! No prisoners!

[Shwa]

...those condemning our Lads as war criminals...

Who exactly - on our side I mean - is "condemning our Lads as war criminals" and what does that have to do with the Afghan Detainee issue?

[wyly]

I sometimes wonder why our guys take prisoners! Run out of ammunition? It is a good thing we didn`t have this kind of scrutiny in WW2 or we would probably have lost to the AXIS powers. Bad things happen in fog of war . Especially when the other side does not wear a uniform. Mean while those condemning our Lads as war criminals ,how come I don`t hear you chastising the enemy as war criminals for how they treat prisoners ,military or civilian? Whoops! I forgot they torture then chop their heads off as infidels.No problem ! No prisoners!

ignoring the fact that most of the detainees are innocent makes our behaviour more like that of the AXIS powers than the good guys...

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps apochryphal, but a valid attitude in any case:

a City Councilor from Newcastle, Australia, was

asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the

allegations of torture of suspected Taliban terrorists.

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to

thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a

car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save

just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say, Red is

Positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

As funny as it sounds...it is probably fictitious..

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/mythical-councillor-stirs-poton-terrorist-torture/story-e6freagc-1225718356726

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/bechtol.asp

Edited May 14, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue is did the Tory government know about torturing going on and tried to cover it up? Since they said themselves, changes had to be made in the transfers, its only common sense that they knew. No one said it was their fault for the torturing, its the denying of it.

[wyly]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue is did the Tory government know about torturing going on and tried to cover it up? Since they said themselves, changes had to be made in the transfers, its only common sense that they knew. No one said it was their fault for the torturing, its the denying of it.

the military inquiry into detainees now admits nearly everyone knew, so now the military admits it knew making the generals who denied it liars, it's a safe assumption the government knew as well...

denying it and knowingly still allowing it to happen with Canadians troops continually supplying detainees for torture and murder makes us complicit, an accessory to a war crime...

[Born Free]

I sometimes wonder why our guys take prisoners! Run out of ammunition? It is a good thing we didn`t have this kind of scrutiny in WW2 or we would probably have lost to the AXIS powers. Bad things happen in fog of war . Especially when the other side does not wear a uniform. Mean while those condemning our Lads as war criminals ,how come I don`t hear you chastising the enemy as war criminals for how they treat prisoners ,military or civilian? Whoops! I forgot they torture then chop their heads off as infidels.No problem ! No prisoners!

How many times does the issue need to be explained to you?

[Keepitsimple]

From The Star - a column by Rosie DiManno:

I wish representatives from all parties would spend just 24 hours outside the wire with Canadian troops in Afghanistan and then explain to those soldiers where Ottawa’s priorities lie and why.

If politicians are so consumed with a forensic auditing of what our troops knew about detainee abuse — which no doubt happened and which everyone suspected and which Canadian soldiers could do nothing to avert because a previous Liberal government had signed off on prisoner transfers minus oversight guarantees (the consequence of not turning them over to Americans at Bagram) — then maybe they should take a closer look at the April 28 transcript from their own parliamentary committee investigating the matter.

Testifying that day were Gavin Buchan, former political director and senior Canadian official in Kandahar from 2006 to 2007 — except for a two-month period when future whistle-blowing diplomat Richard Colvin filled in at the job — and Major General (Retired) Tim Grant, commander of Canadian troops in Kandahar during roughly the same period.

(In Colvin’s explosive committee testimony late last year, and again in April, he alleged having credible information of detainee abuse within a month of arriving in Kandahar in the spring of 2006; that all transferred battlefield detainees were abused; and reports he sent to dozens of senior government officials from May 2006 to October 2007 were ignored.)

But Buchan told the committee he only learned of the allegations in April 2007 from newspaper reports.

“I was left wondering if I had overlooked information I should have seen. If everybody supposedly knew, then what had I missed?’’

In preparing for his committee appearance, Buchan studied all his files and notes from Afghanistan — including the briefing notes turned over by Colvin upon Buchan’s arrival.

“At no time before April, 2007, did anyone express to me that they had concerns involving transfers, and that includes Mr. Colvin, who had ample opportunity to do so.’’ That included discussions Buchan had with NATO allies, the UN, the International Red Cross and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

“In the handover note that I received on my arrival in Kandahar in July, 2006, there was no reference to the detainee issue whatsoever. . . there was nothing to that effect in the note.’’

Asked for his opinion as to why Colvin had told the committee he’d warned officials in 2006, Buchan responded: “I won’t presume to speak for Richard or his motivations. What I will say is that in April 2007, there were some very vigorous exchanges between the embassy in Kabul and headquarters in which he (Colvin) put forward strong, and I believe entirely legitimate views, but the key thing here is the timing.

“Those views were expressed in April 2007, not in the period prior.’’

It was at that point that Canadians pressed for a revised agreement with Afghan security officials to better monitor the fate of transferred detainees.

Grant also testified that he’d seen and spoken with Colvin on numerous occasions, in Kandahar and in Kabul. “But at no point did he come and say, ‘General, there’s an issue.’ ’’

Further, Grant told the committee he too had face-to-face meetings with the human rights commission and the head of the National Security Directorate after Globe and Mail stories appeared citing extensive abuse and torture of detainees. But Grant could never find the few official sources cited in the Globe’s stories — including an individual identified as the head of the NDS in Kandahar. “The name is not one that I recognized and it’s not one that any of the senior leadership of the NDS recognized. So I’m not sure who (the reporter) had actually spoken to, but that caused me some concern.’’

Nor could Grant find the human rights commission individual quoted in the article as alleging abuse.

“The concern there was that individual was quoted as being concerned about the fact that Canada was not providing or it would be nice of Canada provided the names of detainees that were transferred,’’ said Grant. “And again, that struck a chord with me because for more than two months, we had been doing exactly that. I signed an agreement personally with the head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission on the 20th of February at which point we said that we would provide those details and we had been providing them.’’

If there was a cover-up of Canadian knowledge about detainee abuse prior to 2007, it clearly did not involve either this country’s top civilian or top soldier in Kandahar. They couldn’t hide what they didn’t know and what both have sworn was never brought to their attention.

But while the paper chase continues in Ottawa, everybody knows this: Schoolgirls are being gassed and Canadian soldiers are still getting killed. Spare some outrage for them.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/809259--dimanno-politicians-need-to-take-a-stroll-in-afghanistan

[Keepitsimple]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue is did the Tory government know about torturing going on and tried to cover it up? Since they said themselves, changes had to be made in the transfers, its only common sense that they knew. No one said it was their fault for the torturing, its the denying of it.

You stand corrected - the issue is did the Canadian Government know about torture and if they did, what did they do about it......and were the steps they took reasonable in balancing the possibility of torture with the respect for Afghanistan's sovereignty. Bill Graham's testimony indicates that the Liberal government knew nothing about torture so did nothing to protect against it. The Conservatives were concerned about it and put safeguards in place similar to other countries - which should have been done in the first place......and to date, from the hundreds if not thousands of detainee transfers, we have a few allegations of torture but very little proof that even a handful of cases might be valid. That's about all we know so far.

[bloodyminded]

But while the paper chase continues in Ottawa, everybody knows this: Schoolgirls are being gassed and Canadian soldiers are still getting killed. Spare some outrage for them.

Ah, the conventional mantra: "stop focvussing on what we're we might be doing wrong, and start focussing on what the official enemy is doing wrong. Oh...and why don't y'all Support the Troops?"

We might call this the Last Refuge.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Perhaps apochryphal, but a valid attitude in any case:

a City Councilor from Newcastle, Australia, was

asked on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the

allegations of torture of suspected Taliban terrorists.

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to

thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a

car battery to get the truth out of the lying little camelshagger will save

just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say, Red is

Positive, Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."

Perhaps apochryphal? Of course it's apocraphyl! There are no politicians,even in australia, with that kind of guts.

[Keepitsimple]

Ah, the conventional mantra: "stop focvussing on what we're we might be doing wrong, and start focussing on what the official enemy is doing wrong. Oh...and why don't y'all Support the Troops?"

We might call this the Last Refuge.

I guess you haven't read the articles in this thread.

[Oleg Bach]

"Wilful misdoings" is an odd set of words..whether the indicreation is carried out with willful intent or not - the results is the same --- I will scream my mantra again regarding this issue..The Haper government used the liberal feel good mindset to deseminate the propoganda that Canadians and Americans involved in this region are do-gooders..It irks me to know end how they use human female rights and the rights of woman in general as some sort of emotional cause that drives on the war in part YET --- I can not get over the turn the blind eye to boy rape that IS policy generated out of Ottawa instructing our military..some one is not sincere here.

[wyly]

"Wilful misdoings" is an odd set of words..whether the indicreation is carried out with willful intent or not - the results is the same --- I will scream my mantra again regarding this issue..The Haper government used the liberal feel good mindset to deseminate the propoganda that Canadians and Americans involved in this region are do-gooders..It irks me to know end how they use human female rights and the rights of woman in general as some sort of emotional cause that drives on the war in part YET --- I can not get over the turn the blind eye to boy rape that IS policy generated out of Ottawa instructing our military..some one is not sincere here.

excellent point Oleg, well done...

[eyeball]

...it started with the Liberals...

Well duh. As the government of the day they dragged us into this unjust war in the first place. Of course it's not like they had any Opposition.

[bloodyminded]

I guess you haven't read the articles in this thread.

I responded direstly to an explicit plea within the passage you quoted. First it tries to make a sober argument; and then, as is not atypical, it ends with "Spare some outrage for them" sanctimonious meaninglessness, meant to arouse emotive patriotism by way of a closing argument.