Firm date

Feb 22, 2008 : Globe and Mail

"The Conservative government has proposed a firm date of July, 2011, for Canadian troops to withdraw from southern Afghanistan.

"It would be churlish for anyone to suggest that the government has not come a long way," Bob Rae said. Mr. Rae said the important point is that the government agreed to accept a firm end date ... and adopting the Liberal wording on changing the focus of the mission to training Afghan forces.

The Tory motion adopted almost all of the wording of a motion proposed by Mr. Dion on Feb. 12, but it deleted the Liberals' demands that the Canadian Forces refuse to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities."

Nov 19, 2010 : Ottawa Citizen

"Canada's end date of March 2014 for a training mission in Afghanistan is firm despite NATO's plan to continue non-combat operations there, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Friday.

"March of 2014 is when we will be leaving," Cannon said at a news conference."

This time Bob Rae brokered the Lib/Con deal and said we didn't really need a vote on it.

As to the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities entirely funded by the CIA - an issue so explosive Steve shut down Parliament rather than face an investigation into it just under a year ago - well, no one mentions that any more but Laurie Hawn is working on it.

Mediawatch - Bartending the Inquisition

The Ottawa Citizen recently ran an item under "News" entitled "End the Inquisition" in which the author equated the parliamentary committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan with Senator Joe McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?", quotes the author, while condemning "wild accusations of torture and nothing in the way of proof" :

"... the public hears only from the accusers. Some of Canada's most distinguished citizens have been called war criminals."

It's really all about getting out of Afghanistan, he says, and "putting maximum pressure on the government to ensure there is no backtracking on the decision that Canada leave next summer -- and leave Afghans to their fate.":

"Prevailing opinion to the contrary, there is a strong argument that Canada's responsibility for detainees ends when they are handed over and that the onus is on Afghanistan, not Canada, to keep track of them and deal with them pursuant to Afghan law. "

The author wraps up by invoking Eisenhower :

"When he was elected president in 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was the great hope for those who wanted to see an end to the human wreckage McCarthy caused.
But Eisenhower would not intervene. "I just will not, I refuse, to get into the gutter with that guy." It was a noble sentiment he later regretted.

Would that good people in our own time not wait too much longer to intervene."

The Ottawa Citizen then provides a short bio on the author :

"Paul Chapin is a former director general for international security at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He is an adjunct professor in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University and a director of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute."

Dear Ottawa Citizen : Rather more relevant would have been the information that as director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs international security bureau from 2003 to the fall of 2006, Paul Chapin was once a proud author of the original 2005 detainee agreement, in his own words : "happy to take ownership". And, as noted in his CDAI bio : "Mr. Chapin developed the strategy to shift the centre of gravity of Canada’s peace operations in Afghanistan from Kabul to Kandahar."

PS I'm bothering you with last weekend's CanWest histrionics here because said "news" item is featured today on the front page of Jack's Newswatch, was mentioned twice by Peter MacKay in the House yesterday, and is currently being approvingly parsed by various, uh, milblogs.

Edited to add last link to Wherry, who was already on this earlier today.

Harper Conservative Jim Abbott believes in torture...

So long as a a whisper-fine technicality allows it.

Let's put it another way. Despite the fact that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have absolutely vowed that the articles of the Geneva Conventions apply to all combatants in Afghanistan, Jim Abbott is defending the actions of Canada's Afghan jailers on the basis that "the enemy" does not constitute a "state" as defined in the various conventions of the laws of armed conflict of which Canada is seized.

Therefore, according to Abbott, torture is NOT prohibited... technically, y'know.

Resolved. Jim Abbott is not suggesting torture does not happen to detainees handed over to our Afghan jailers. He is suggesting it happens and it is perfectly legal because the combatants taken into custody are not protected by any convention.

That is the Harper Conservative position... once again emerging as a defence against charges of Canadian government complicity in inhumane treatment.

I guess Abbott now understands he has just put Canadian troops at great risk. Should a Canadian soldier fall into the hands of "the enemy" they can do pretty much anything they want to that individual, with Abbott's permission, because the technical line he's following works in both directions. If a bunch of insurgents, Talib or not, capture a Canadian soldier and start cutting off his body parts on a You Tube video, (when they're not pre-empted by Steve Harper trying to play one of the kewl kids), he'll just shrug it off because technically, our troops have no protection from partisan forces under the rules of armed conflict.

Tie me another yellow ribbon Abbott, you senseless fuckwad.

Because that's what they do...

This I believe. I'm not surprized in the slightest. It will underscore the point made earlier by many that the Chief of Defence Staff of the day was aware that the prisoner transfer agreement he had entered into was, shall we say, seriously flawed.

It will also cause the monosynaptic whipheads at the Blogging Tories to start squawking, "The Liberals did it, too!" Which is non sequitur to the current issue facing the Harperites.

This is closer to the issue. The Harperites developing a plan, not to correct the situation on the ground and guarantee that government direction did not place troops and diplomats in a condition which might violate international law, but to develop a single story and "stick to it".

That's not to say that a new MOU hadn't been signed by then. It had been. Just days before, in fact. So, you might ask, how long some group of frat-boys spent putting together a power point presentation intended for a cabinet meeting where they would all agree on a single velocity of spin?

But, I think there is a larger point being missed. At some stage a decision was made and direction issued that any prisoners or detainees taken in the field by Canadians were "technically" not in Canadian custody because patrols were accompanied by at least one member of the Afghan National Army or the Afghan NDS. Captives were "technically" the responsibility of the Afghans present and never "technically" passed through Canadian points of responsibility. Thus, it was Afghans turning captives over to Afghans, despite Canadian presence, and there was no requirement to monitor the detainee - at all.

I'm sure some genius will eventually work out the harm and foul of Canadians being ordered not to involve themselves, even if a capture was the result of a Canadian action. Eventually.

My Canada does not include war criminals

In light of this, I think that it is undeniable that there must be a fully public, non-partisan inquest, preferrably by a provincial coroner or similar authority that is more than arm's length away from the federal government. From the CBC:

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert.

If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

If the allegation that Afghan prisoners were purposely sent to be tortured turns out to be true, I  want people sent to jail. And by jail I don't mean country club Conrad Black minimum security jail, either. I want to see them walking the yard at Millhaven. And by people I mean every single person in the chain of command that approved or did not act to stop this - right up to the Cabinet level, including the Prime Minister. If it happened under the Liberals and Paul Martin knew about it, fine, jail his retired ass, too. This is not about politics or the party currently in power. This about Canada upholding basic human rights. We may have gotten a lot of things related to human rights wrong in the past - from residential schools to head taxes to incarcerating the Japanese during World War Two - whichever party is in power, but we have never tolerated outright evil like this. This must be investigated, fully and completely and in the full light of day, with nothing redacted or left unexamined to "protect operational security" or any other bullshit reason the people involved want to try to cite to save their asses. My Canada does not include torture.

Update: the Mound of Sound has more here, here and here

MoS gives Frank Iacobucci a map to the minefield

You have to read this.

That sticky little problem - "In-field Transfers"

The other shoe is finally starting to drop. The transfer of prisoners detained by Canadian troops isn't nearly as serious as those who were transferred to Afghan authorities without any period of detention in a Canadian processing facility. (Emphasis mine)

Diplomatic reports from the same period show that Mr. Colvin wasn't the only foreign service officer relaying criticisms about detainee transfers to Ottawa. A Sept. 11, 2006, memo from a Canadian NATO staffer alerted the government to the fact that the ICRC had singled out Canada's practice of handing over prisoners to the Afghans on the battlefield, a practice it feared could result in human-rights monitors losing track of detainees.

Over the past few years I've heard that same thing from a number of Afghanistan theatre veterans. And every one of them feared that if it ever became public there would be hell to pay.

Let's put one thing out in the open. From the perspective of a ground combatant, prisoners are a huge pain in the ass. Not only do they require a great deal of care and processing, but they put an immediate drain on the resources of a small unit, interfering with the ability to maintain field security and disrupting the mission. Not to mention that immediately after a close-quarters action the heart-rate, adrenaline and fear are still fuelling a mind-set which previously interrupted a person's more humane tendencies.

The prisoner transfer agreement entered into by Hillier and then "fixed" later on has to do with Afghan (or other imports) detained by Canadian troops and then sent back for processing by Canadian authorities. That, no matter how you'd like to measure it, is a lot of work, and it means you have to have among your forces the manpower and the structure to accomplish it. That saps your strength elsewhere - as in "rifles in the field".

From the point of view of intense field operations, both economy of personnel and tactical efficiency appear to be enhanced if you don't have to keep and process prisoners. All the better if you hand them over quickly and get reasonably good intelligence in return.

Canada, apparently from the start of the Kandahar mission, seems to have been playing at a flawed technicality: That suspected or confirmed enemy apprehended in the field and turned over in the field to the Afghan authorities were never technically detainees under Canadian control.

Louie Palu, a Canadian freelance photo-journalist who spent a lot of time outside the wire in Afghanistan made this comment in the Toronto Star: (Emphasis mine)

... what concerns him more is the increasing number of so-called "in-field" detainees – Afghan men taken into custody in Afghan-led operations, with Canadian or U.S. soldiers (or both) present as advisors. "When the blended mentoring teams capture a detainee, who does he belong to? They become Afghan detainees because the Afghans are in the lead."

And, yes, that's a problem. The greater problem however, is ISAF-led operations where detainees are handed over to the integrated Afghan forces. It's economical, efficient and their problem... if you ignore this little bit from Koring's Globe article.

Canada wasn't providing details even to its allies on what happened to the suspects it picked up. That is despite the fact that ISAF, the command structure for the war in Afghanistan, imposes legal and operational requirements aimed at ensuring detainees are looked after, transferred and held in accordance with international law.

The truth, however, is that troops would proceed with whatever procedure they were instructed to pursue. If the direction from NDHQ was to effect in-field transfers wherever possible then that's what they would do. And that was the what and the where of direction from on high.

Almost everyone I've spoken to was extremely uncomfortable with that. It's an awkward position to be in and smacks of the senior denizens of 101 Colonel By Drive intentionally playing in a legal gray area with an explosive perimeter. Except that ISAF didn't agree that the gray even existed.

(It doesn't help that the Chief of Defence Staff of the day had declared that the opposition was nothing but "murderers and scumbags" to expand the "prisoners shouldn't be our problem" ethos.)

Bruce over at Flit mentioned in November the same thing I had been hearing from friends earlier:

Over the last couple years, dozens of Afghans have been taken on ISAF-led ops in Kandahar Province and handed over at the point of capture by ISAF personnel to participating Afghan security forces. Because they were never technically in Western hands for any extended period, there is no reporting requirement imposed on the Afghans under our existing protocols. Unavoidable? Probably. But supporters of the mission might want to continue to keep their arms braced on the seat-back in front of them, because at some point the media may connect those dots.

Indeed, they have started to do just that. Yesterday, Bruce, added this:

Look, here's the facts. The NDS is still the NDS. We don't mentor them, and they haven't changed. All Afghan detainees to this day still are at their mercy eventually. Also, the vast majority of detainees taken in Kandahar Province up to eight months ago were taken by the Afghan security forces without documentation, whether Canadians were also involved in their capture or not. No one, Afghans included, has any real idea where any of those people are now. The protocols we have with the Afghan government only govern the tiny minority who spent time in the Canadian detainee cage in KAF before that transfer took place, because those are the only official detainees we have followup responsibilities to under our interpretation of our Geneva obligations.

I would recommend that you read that again, particularly the last sentence. How NDHQ interpreted the obligation agreed to with ISAF differs, quite obviously, from the way NATO interpreted it.

The Afghan government's detainee apparatus I worked with was simply not designed to generate POWs, or intelligence for that matter. It presumably was more successful at generating ransoms, given its revolving-door nature at the time. And sure, maybe things have gotten better, but in April 2009, in my last report to my highers after watching this through the ANA G2's office for over half a year, I said I was watching it get worse by the month. Hey, T.I.A. (This. Is. Afghanistan), as I've said before: the fact that getting taken prisoner is really a 72-hour time out pass for those who can pay promptly was nowhere NEAR the biggest problem in Kandahar at the time. But the idea that all our detainee issues were "fixed" two years ago and remains anywhere near fixed today, by any definition you want to use of the word "fixed," can be impeached by any of a thousand Afghan veterans with stories to tell who might want to contradict the PM on this ...

If you missed the other huge problem in that last bit, you should read it over again.

The long and short of it is that Canadian troops on the ground, who have had their personal obligations under international protocols hammered into them from the start of basic training, are aware of those obligations and have demonstrated that they will fulfill them to the extent instructed by NDHQ. The question then becomes, are NDHQ's instruction legal?

And this can come back to bite very very hard. Look at what's happening in New Zealand after they transfered prisoners to the Americans.

Oh! Uh oh.

Contempt of Parliament

Did you expect anything else from the Harperites? The supremacy of Parliament is absolute in this country and Harper is giving the only democratically elected federal institution in this country the finger.

He said when he was done we wouldn't recognize this country. He was right. Looks more like a third-rate banana-republic run by an overblown tin-pot narcissicist.



























Harper PMO junior communications staff starter kit.

Gunfight at the Rideau Corral (in the kiddies section). Updated!

This, as Scott suggests, is going to get very interesting.

Well, it's the last opposition day before the House breaks for the holidays, and it turns out that all they -- or at least, the Liberals -- want for Christmas is ... the full set of documents requested by the Afghanistan committee, "in their original and uncensored form." That's the gist of the following motion, which will be the object of what is likely to be a lively debate in the Commons today. Spoiler alert: it's the last line that's the kicker:

It's worth reading the whole motion available at the first link above but, since Kady told us where to look for the load of buckshot, let's look!

accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

Zounds! And as Kady points out...

See that bit about 'the House hereby orders'? Matters of parliamentary privilege -- in this case, the "absolute power" to demand the production of documents -- are dealt with entirely within the aegis of Parliament itself; there is no court of appeal or outside authority that makes the final decision on the legitimacy of an order of the House. If the above motion passes -- and there is absolutely no reason to think that it won't, most likely later tonight -- it becomes an order of the House -- which, unlike, for instance, that feel-good Bloc Quebecois motion on what Canada's stance at the Copenhagen conference should be, cannot be simply ignored by a -- or, in this case, the -- government.

That is, for lack of a better description, the nuclear option. And the Liberals feel justified and safe in using it because of two things:

1. The testimony of CDS General Walter Natynczyk before the Commons defence committee has been reversed in a public statement by Natynczyk himself; and,

2. Defence minister, Peter "Airshow" Mackay, apparently has no one covering his "six".

Via James Morton, we get this very interesting observation from Jane Taber.

Stephen Harper defended his top soldier and the Canadian Forces today but never backed Peter MacKay amid opposition demands that he fire the Defence Minister over his handling of the Afghan detainee controversy.

[...]

For each and every call for Mr. MacKay’s firing, the Prime Minister would only say that the military acted correctly and with integrity.

Kind of makes that "deal", way back when the Harper Reformers hijacked the Progressive Conservative party back in December 2003, look pretty weak.

Deal?

Oh yeah. The deal that Peter MacKay, having delivered the membership of his Progressive Conservatives into the hands of the Harper Reformers, would, should the new party ever form government, always hold a high profile cabinet position. This would ensure that, should Harper die of natural causes or be hit by a bus, that MacKay is well positioned for a successful leadership bid.

The Harperite reformers can deny the existence of such a deal all they like. It's obvious, given that MacKay has, on more than one occasion, committed acts, which the the reformers would view as sins, such that he should have been shuffled, at the very best, to the remotest end of the cabinet table.

The Harperites would love to ditch the irritating centrist remnants of the Progressive Conservative Party and get on with being intolerant right-wing maniacs. This current pot, boiling over on MacKay's stovetop as it is, presents an opportunity for them.

This parliamentary gunfight, held out in the open, will probably also end up with a blood-letting in the Harper caucus. If it doesn't, it means that MacKay has some very secure dirt on the Reformers.

Update: At 5:55 pm Fort Fumble time, the motion ordering the government to produce documents requested by the Afghanistan committee in their original and uncensored form, passed.

Someone should tell MacKay that, even if he finds a gun, he no longer needs a full load. A single bullet will serve the only purpose left.

We don't need another hero

The Skipper has already chastized John Baird, who should never ever wear a turtleneck, for his objectionable conduct and general stupidity related to the Afghan prisoner denial-fest, but this part caught my eye too:

From Macleans:
"Mr. Baird was ready with a response. “Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Let us talk about the facts,” he boldly declared. “The then-Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walter Natynczyk, a decorated war hero, someone who has served our country in uniform for decades..."

(Baird then went on for a while in this vein before excusing himself )

Decorated war hero? In what war? Was Natynczyk at Vimy Ridge? Did he storm Juno Beach? Did he fight in Korea? Did he lead some heroic commando mission in Somalia or withstand the seige of Sarajevo or lead F-18 sorties over Kuwait in the first Iraq war? Has he been out battling the wily Pathan in the Afghan hills? Where was he decorated and for what?

A little checking revealed Gen. Walter Natynczyk does have some medals, some of them are even for serving in a war. In addition to being a Commander of the Order of Military Merit, which is awarded for "Outstanding meritorious service and demonstrated leadership in duties of great responsibility" (in other words longstanding excellence in military service in the same way the Order of Canada is doled out to politicians who manage to stay in office long enough to be considered "statesmen" without getting embroiled in a scandal), in 2006 Natynczyk was awarded the Meritorious Service Cross.

Governor General of Canada; Media release. Jan 24, 2006. "MGen Natynczyk is recognized for his outstanding leadership and professionalism while deployed as Deputy Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. From January 2004 to January 2005, MGen Natynczyk led the Corps' 10 separate brigades, consisting of more than 35,000 soldiers stationed throughout the Iraq Theatre of Operations. He also oversaw planning and execution of all Corps level combat support and combat service support operations. His pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations resulted in a tremendous contribution by the Multi-National Corps to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada."

So Natynczyk was decorated for his wartime command of forces in a war that Canada was rather pointedly not taking part in. And the award was for his leadership and professionalism, not battlefield valour.

I don't wish to denigrate Gen. Natynczyk's service to this country or to discount the honor done to him and other recipients of these impressive decorations. Nor do I doubt his personal bravery--his record shows that he has served honorably on peacekeeping missions and elsewhere. But none of that makes him a "decorated war hero" to anyone except the kind of mindless uniform fetishists that seem to populate the Conservative benches and form the core of support for the ongoing military adventure in Afghanistan.

Wearing a uniform doesn't make you any more honorable or any smarter or any braver than anyone else and outranking an eyewitness doesn't make you more credible than they are. I think Natynczyk, like most sensible people, realizes this, even if Baird does not.

Baird is an braying brass-kissing ass who loves to wrap himself in the flag and use the Canadian Forces for his own political ends. But this is the Stephen Harper party of Canada and as much as Harper, Baird and Peter McKay love to be photographed playing soldier or sailor, and love to the military as a wedge issue--decrying any opposition to their policy or attempts to hold them responsible as hatred for the sacred troops--as soon as the political bullets start to get too close, somebody is going to be sent to draw fire and that somebody isn't going to one of their own.

Natynczyk seems to understand this and is now making it clear that he isn't going to be falling on his sword for them.

Why won't John Baird and the rest of the Conservative Party of Canada take the word of both our heroic troops in the field and our top soldier? Why won't they hold a full public inquiry?

I want a Torture Inquiry

To:Prime Minister Stephen Harper pm@pm.gc.ca

CC:NDP Leader Jack Layton Layton.J@parl.gc.ca,

Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe DucepG@parl.gc.ca

.

Subject: I Want a Torture Inquiry

.

Dear Prime Minister Harper,

.

I am very concerned by the recent testimony of senior intelligence officer Richard Colvin.

.

According to Mr. Colvin, who served in Afghanistan and is currently posted to Canada's embassy in Washington, the government received repeated warnings that people who were taken prisoner and transferred to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops were tortured by the Afghans. Yet the Canadian government failed to act.

.

I support the call for an independent public inquiry into the possibility that government and military officials abandoned their responsibility to ensure Canada acted within Canadian and International law, and upheld Canadian values.

.

I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]

.

With thanks to Thwap and Mentarch for picking this up.

It was mentioned in comments at Mentarch's that petitions are useless.

Verifiable petitions like this one from Ceasefire are read aloud in the House of Commons.

How else are they gonna know we're paying attention?

Who's with us?