Richard Colvin vs the Generals.

.

From Richard Colvin's reports beginning in May 2006 :

3. Of the XXX detainees we interviewed XXX said XXX had been whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and/or otherwise "hurt" while in NDS custody in Kandahar. This period of alleged abuse lasted from between XXX and XXX days, and was carried out in XXX and XXX. XXX detainees still had XXX on XXX body; XXX seemed traumatized. This alleged abuse would have occurred before the new arrangement between the governments of Canada and Afghanistan was signed

'Torture' not mentioned in Afghan detainee reports: Generals

"Three generals declared Wednesday that there was no mention of the word "torture" in reports from a senior diplomat who asserts that he repeatedly warned the government against surrendering Afghan detainees to local authorities because they would almost certainly be abused.

One of the recipients of the widely distributed reports, which Colvin says were copied to 76 government and military personnel in Ottawa and Afghanistan, was retired Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, who was then the head of oversees deployment.
Gauthier told the Commons committee that none of Colvin's 2006 reports, including his May document, mentioned anything about torture.

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier during Colvin's posting in Afghanistan in 2006-07 : "There was simply nothing there."

So there you have it - because Richard Colvin neglected to include the word "torture" in his accounts of detainees allegedly being "whipped with cables and shocked with electricity", there was no torture and the generals apparently feel justified in having failed to read his reports in the first place.

.

h/t Dr. Dawg

Harper denies seeing Afghan torture reports

Looking more like Dick all the time, Steve.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper has now joined then Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay and then Minister of Defence Gordon O'Connor in denying he ever saw any of the 16 reports from the political director at the Canadian-run Afghan reconstruction base in 2006 warning that Afghan authorities were abusing detainees handed over by Canadian forces.

Yesterday Murray Brewster at CP described those reports from Richard Colvin, now deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy in Washington, as "circulated widely throughout the Foreign Affairs and Defence departments and also shared with senior military commanders in Ottawa and Afghanistan."

Yet somehow they escaped the collective notice of MacKay, O'Connor, and Harper :

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday that he did not see reports in 2006 that suggested there was evidence detainees had been tortured after they were handed over to Afghan prisons by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
Harper said he didn't see the reports "at the time."
"There were allegations of Canadian troops involved in torture. We’ve been very clear that's not the case," the prime minister said."

"At the time"? There were 16 reports from May to December. When exactly was "at the time"?

And "allegations Canadian troops involved"?
No. Not at all. Don't pretend to be protecting the troops. This was never about the troops.
This was about you putting those troops in the appalling position of transferring their prisoners to certain abuse.
The "allegations" now are that you are covering it up .

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, "at the time": "Torture continues to take place as a routine part of police procedures. The AIHRC has found torture to occur particularly at the investigation stage in order to extort confessions from detainees."

Louise Arbour, the Canadian UN rep who you summarily dismissed, and the U.S. freakin' State Department, "at the time": "Afghan local authorities "routinely" torture detainees".

Peter Van Loan, Con house leader "at the time", called all this "allegations by the Taliban"

Me, "at the time" : "Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. We simply don't have time to go back and re-fight and re-argue all the battles for some semblance of civilization that we have already won. And we certainly don't have time for any government that hasn't figured this out yet."

More : Boris, POGGE, Thwap, Impolitical, A Creative Revolution

Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts

It was back in October when we first heard about the possibility of US Marines relocating from Iraq to Afghanistan :

"The US Marine Corps has insisted that its forces be removed from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan instead to take the lead in combat there.
According to senior military and Pentagon officials, the suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defence Secretary Robert M Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders, theNew York Times reported.
This would leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while the Marines would play an important role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command."

Then came the Manley panel report and the whole drama of Harper's conditions for staying on in Afghanistan - where oh where would the 1000 extra troops and air power evah come from? - and now the US Marines are indeed relocating to Afghanistan as planned and Operation Enduring Freedom is in da house!

CBC : Afghanistan joint command

"There were sighs of relief in government circles earlier this month when the United States agreed to provide at least an additional 1,000 marines to the Canada-led mission in Kandahar.
Finding an extra 1,000 combat soldiers to help the 2,500-strong Canadian military mission in troubled southern Afghanistan was a key Canadian condition — along with more air power — for keeping our troops there until the end of 2011."

Way to keep up, CBC. I do believe we've already bitched that one.

But in what CBC refers to as the "new, more side-by-side relationship between American and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan", a few questions arise about our differing policies.
Quite apart from how the command structure is supposed to work, there's the American propensity for wiping out marijuana and poppy crops, ie Afghani livelihood; their greater reliance on air strikes, ie bombing Afghan civilians; and the little matter of their torturing detainees/POWs, ie Bagram., the US internment facility where Afghan detainees known to be innocent of any crimes have been beaten to death.

Uh-oh - detainees. Already a big optics headache for Harper in Canada, news that detainees might fall under US - Canadian joint jurisdiction is bound to play badly for the Cons.
But wait!

CTV : Ottawa hopes to block probe into Afghan detainees :

"The government is seeking to block an independent investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission into Canada's handling of Afghan detainees, according to court documents filed in Federal Court.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association filed a complaint with the commission last year, after allegations surfaced that detainees had been tortured by local Afghan authorities.
Government lawyers filed an application Friday to halt the investigation, saying the commission does not have jurisdiction to probe the complaints."

Something they really might have mentioned at any time since the commission began its investigation.
And as Pogge points out, if the commission doesn't have jurisdiction, then why has the government of Canada been complying, however reluctantly, with its demands for documentation up till now?

Possibly because now we're under deadline to get aligned with Operation Enduring Freedom From Inconvenient Facts before the 'joint partnership' begins in July.

The detainee issue isn't dead. Just the news cycle surrounding it.

As Impolitical says, this is getting lost in a news shuffle. Under any other circumstances, when political parties weren't picking lint from each others' navels, this would be more than a little serious.

The world's most respected human rights organization has just accused this country of complicity in torture. Canadians should hang their heads in shame.
Yesterday, the London-based international secretariat of Amnesty International released a 38-page report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other members of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The report is based upon Amnesty International's own field research, as well as on-the-ground reports from other reputable human rights and media organizations.
Back in December 2005, Canada and Afghanistan concluded an "arrangement" on detainee transfers that lacked basic verification mechanisms, such as the right for Canadian officials to visit transferred detainees. Last May, under the threat of a federal court injunction, the Canadian government negotiated an improved arrangement.
But the new arrangement has failed to work. According to Amnesty International, transferred detainees remain "at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment."
The human rights organization cites two reports from the UN secretary general, the most recent from just two months ago, pointing to the use of torture in a "significant number of cases." It collates a number of media reports to the same effect, as well as statements from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. It highlights the admission, by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade last summer, that Canadian officials had received at least six first-hand reports of torture.

Somewhere between worrying about Brian Mulroney's effect on Harper, somebody decided to respond.

Yesterday, the Canadian Department of National Defence responded to the Amnesty International report by stating that "Afghanistan is a sovereign country with a constitution that requires the protection of human rights, and which has the responsibility for detention of Afghans."

The response misses the point. Canada is a sovereign country, too. We have our own constitutional and international legal responsibilities that are engaged whenever our soldiers act overseas. And we had, until recently, a strong reputation as a human rights respecting state.

DND is way off the mark here. This is a cheap-out along with a cop out.

First, Afghanistan is NOT sovereign. Any country with somebody else's army on the ground fighting for the survival of a questionable government, relying on others for materiel and combat support, is not totally independent.

The truth is, DND and the Canadian Forces have an obligation, no matter where our forces are deployed, to observe Canadian law. We don't get to ignore the mistreatment of prisoners taken by our forces, even if that mistreatment is happening at the hands of others after being turned over.

The responsibility for the detention of prisoners falls to the Aghanistan authorities because we have agreed to that obviously flawed arrangement. As a belligerent involved in a war, we have every right to retain prisoners in Canadian custody.

It's about time prisoners taken by Canadian Forces were placed in Canadian custody until the objectives of the Canadian mission have been fully satisfied. And if the argument is that it is too costly to do so, we shouldn't be involved at all.

Did I say, "objectives"?

Over to you, MacKay.

The Three Stooges and Prisoner Abuse.

The idea of governments waiting until after 6 p.m. on a Friday to release information is that the news cycle is effectively dead. Unless something truly titillating is transpiring, most reporters have left the field and headed for cover. Some go to the bars and hob-nob with the very people they're writing about. (If you don't believe that, do I have some interesting pictures for you!)

In any case, if a government official wants to release information that is least likely to gather attention, after 6 p.m. local on a Friday is the best time to do it.

That's what Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's office did yesterday.

Six prisoners have complained to Canadian officials of abuse in Afghan prisons – not four, as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said earlier this week.

Not the two admitted to by Stockwell Day in April; Not the four admitted to by Peter MacKay before a parliamentary committee this past week.

Six.

But it's not the number so much as the attempts to either mislead parliament or the glaring incompetence of O'Connor, Day and MacKay in dealing with the problem.

At any given time they have a different answer to the same question. They have misled parliament and parliamentary committees. They have lied about the levels of access Corrections Canada officials had to transfered prisoners. They were unable to describe the prisoner transfer agreement until yet another new one was implemented on 3 May.

And now, they keep changing the numbers. Why? The most obvious answer is that someone else knew the truth and was about to deliver it to a news outlet.

Before anyone goes off half-cocked with inappropriate suggestions, I have no problem with detaining captured prisoners, or transferring them. As long as it's done within the scope of the standards set for the Canadian Forces. That means that whether a combatant meets the test of identity laid out in the 1949 Geneva Convention Article 4 or not, the Canadian Armed Forces are required to treat all captured combatants as Prisoners of War by way of regulation and orders.

It's the fact that, until 3 May, there seemed to be little concern for the way transferred PWs were treated. It is likely that there was no complete record of those transfered to Afghan custody. Prior to that date, the conditions of the prisoner transfer agreement were literally unknown, the Minister of National Defence being unable to explain its contents.

For those who would argue that we shouldn't be concerned about how Afghan insurgency fighters are treated once captured because they are murderous scum-bags, I can state, without compunction, we don't get to be like them - ever. Neither do our agents.

The particularly warped belief that we can behave in the same manner as those we refer to as the Taliban would suggest that we would have been completely justified, between 1939 and 1945, in rounding up every citizen and resident of German descent, however far removed they were from that heritage, concentrate them in camps and methodically murder them. The fact that, in 1942, we did incarcerate Japanese-Canadians for no other reason than their race and appearance remains a shameful stain on the Canadian historical record.

This is about O'Connor, Day and MacKay and the fact that they cannot seem to get any of this right. They are either trying to hide something or they are all unbelievably incompetent.

Either way, they appear less organized than the Three Stooges and it's time we were rid of them. They are exposing our troops to charges of war crimes and I can't think of any serving CF member who deserves such a lack of support.

Stockwell Day's little smokescreen isn't quite a lie, but it's not really the truth either

Confused? You should be. The Harper government constantly moving around the playing field with the ball under its arm trying to find centre field is enough to get your head spinning. First there was an agreement, then there is an agreement with the governor of Kandahar, then there is an agreement with the NDC (Afghan intelligence police), then there is no agreement but there will be and today, there are plans to formalize an agreement on prisoner transfers.

And while all of this is coming out in the House of Commons, Steve Harper is throwing a temper tantrum and accusing anyone and everyone who criticizes his government's policy on prisoners captured in combat as picking on the military. Either Steve thinks he is a part of the military or he is just too stupid to understand the question.

I can't say any more than Impolitical did in this post on the unbelievable and incompetent juggling act performed by Harper today.

But there's more. Stockwell Day entered the fray by suggesting that Canadian Corrections Officers have had access all along.

For a considerable period of time now, our own Corrections Service here in Canada has had corrections officers working in Kandahar. Matter of fact, I talked with one of them two days ago, Mr. Speaker. Fifteen times already she has had access to the prison facility in Kandahar, has full access. Also did a visit yesterday to the detention facility. Improvements are being made. It's difficult. It's moving, but it's difficult. Improvements are being made.

Right! And not one member of the opposition jumped on that. Not one!

Of course Corrections Canada has Corrections officers in Kandahar, and elsewhere in Afghanistan. They are a part of the development and training program which is being sponsored by the Canadian government.

Read again what Day actually said. He didn't say the Corrections officers had access to transfered detainees. Want to know why not? Because they don't.

What Day said was that Corrections officers have access to the facilities. In fact, the Corrections officers assigned to Afghanistan are a part of a training and mentoring program and they have no access at all to detainees transfered by Canadian Forces to Afghanistan. The Corrections officers are there to help develop the Afghan prison system under UNAMA - not to monitor treatment of PWs.

Stockwell Day put up a dishonest smokescreen. His words were probably true enough, (Well, maybe. There's another point to be made.), but they were placed in the exchange at a time when they were intended to be construed as meaning that Canadian Corrections officers were monitoring, and had been monitoring, PW treatment.

Day, I can guarantee you, if confronted with this, will tell you he meant no such thing. But then there is the question of when he spoke to the Corrections officer. He started out by saying he had spoken to her "two days ago". Then he said she had visited a detention centre yesterday. But he spoke to her they day before that visit. So, either he doesn't know when he spoke to her, got the information from a daily situation report or is using his crystal ball. However he got it, he made it sound like he learned it from her directly.

Day has a reputation for developing cute little scenarios in his mind and then blowing sunshine up peoples' asses. This one should have seen him ripped to shreds. He should have been called on it.

Taken with everything else the Conservatives tried to grab onto today, this dishonest little bit from Stockwell Day serves only to confirm that the Harper crowd have no idea what they're doing and are now grasping at straws in an attempt to end the assault.

A bit of advice for Harper, O'Connor, Day and MacKay. Do what criminals do. Everyone get your story straight before the questioning starts.

O'Connor goes for "Third Time Lucky"

So, Harper is trying to dismiss a report which contained this statement:

Despite some positive developments, the overall human rights situation in Afghanistan deteriorated in 2006 ... Extra judicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common. Freedom of expression still faces serious obstacles, there are serious deficiencies in adherence to the rule of law and due process by police and judicial officials. Impunity remains a problem in the aftermath of three decades of war and much needed reforms of the judiciary systems remain to be implemented.

Harper's defence? This:

Mr. Harper said the government had “no evidence of specific allegations” revealed by the Globe and Mail.

No evidence of specific allegations. That was Harper's line throughout Question Period in Parliament. But he didn't say he didn't see the report mentioned above. He may not have had a specific report; but he had that one.

He knew, O'Connor knew and MacKay knew.... OK... so MacKay didn't know. After all, it was produced by his department. None of them, (except MacKay), have denied that they actually saw that report. And the question has to be, why didn't they take the appropriate action to ensure that prisoners handed over to the Karzai government were being treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? Because they never did take that action. What makes that clear is this report appearing late today:

Canada has reached an agreement with Afghan officials to check on the status of detainees, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Wednesday in the face of intense questioning at the House of Commons.

O'Connor told a foreign affairs committee that officials have struck a deal with the governor of Kandahar that will let them visit Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops.

That agreement, reached Wednesday, would not have been deemed necessary unless so-called rumours of abuse and worse had some basis in fact and the leaders of the Canadian government were aware of it.

But there's more. O'Connor has now implemented a third supposed agreement. The first was with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which turned out not to exist; the next agreement was with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which has claimed it cannot gain access to prisoners, therefore cannot produce information it supposedly promised to provide. Now O'Connor has gone to the governor of Kandahar to allow, what appears to be, Canadians to actually check the condition of prisoners taken by Canadians troops.

There's only one problem: For the last few months at least, the Canadian government has no idea who it was that they actually turned over to the Afghans because they didn't properly document the transfers.

So, who are they going to look at?

And why should we believe O'Connor now? This is his third shot at the same problem. He's screwed the pooch twice before and now we are expected to believe he's finally found the solution? That is more latitude than O'Connor would have given a junior officer when he was a brigadier-general.

Feh.

Wrong document. O'Connor is still on the hook for his ICRC claim

Stephen Taylor is trying desperately to get Gordon O'Connor off the hook for his mis-step on the detention and transfer of prisoners captured by Canadian troops using this document. (Caution. Large PDF file)

While I understand the confusion Taylor is experiencing and his desire to interpret portions of the Joint Doctrine Manual Prisoner of War Handling Detainees And Interrogation & Tactical Questioning in International Operations in O'Connor's favour, he's got it wrong.

Taylor quotes one section of the document claiming it is the erroneous information to which O'Connor was referring when he assured Parliament that the International Committee of the Red Cross would report to Canada if prisoners transfered to Afghanistan authorities were being mistreated.

Even after PW captured by Canada have been transferred to the custody of another nation, there is still a residual responsibility placed on Canada regarding their treatment. If the Government of Canada is notified by the Protecting Power, usually the ICRC, that the Detaining Power to whom the PW have been transferred is not complying with the provisions of the GCs, Canada has a duty to correct the problem, or to take the PW back into Canadian custody.

Taylor is trying to suggest that the statement "usually the ICRC" is sufficient policy direction to convince the minister that the ICRC held a position which would see them report to Canada if prisoners transfered to Afghanistan were mistreated.

First, the document is a part of CF doctrine. It is not specific to Afghanistan.

Secondly, because the document is doctrine, it requires clarification for a specific mission. In this case, the ICRC is identified as "usually" providing services for the Protecting Power. In order for them to actually do that, they have to be delegated the job by a Protecting Power and the ICRC reports back to the Protecting Power. In the case of Afghanistan, the ICRC has not been appointed a delegate of a Protecting Power.

Therefore, O'Connor who, as a former brigadier-general, is very well aware of the difference between policy documents, doctrine and operational orders should have known full-well that in order for the ICRC to have direct involvement with Canada over transfered prisoners, there would have to be clearly laid-out authority issued to the ICRC to represent a Protecting Power.

The same document in article 105, paragraph 2 explains the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross with regards to prisoners:

2. The ICRC is a neutral and private organisation based in Switzerland. Its work is conducted in conjunction with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, governments and voluntary organisations. The ICRC has a number of roles stemming from its principal responsibility for monitoring the application of the GCs and APs by signatory states. These can be summarised as follows: a. Aid to Prisoners of War. The ICRC helps wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces and PW. It attempts to improve their conditions of captivity over the whole period from their capture to their release. It carries out this work through its own delegates and in conjunction with the agency of the Protecting Power. b. Aid to Civil Populations. The ICRC acts on behalf of civil populations, whether they are in friendly territory, enemy territory or in occupied areas, and acts as a neutral intermediary to relieve unnecessary suffering. c. The Central Tracing Agency. The Central Tracing Agency of the ICRC collects all the information it may obtain (through official or private channels) regarding PW, civilians (especially internees) in the power of a Party to the conflict and missing persons. The Agency then transmits such information to the state of origin of the relevant persons.

Then there is article 106, paragraph 2 which provides the definition of a Protecting Power.

2. Definition. The Protecting Power is a non-belligerent State, which has been designated by a Party to the conflict and accepted by the adverse Party and has agreed to carry out the functions assigned to a Protecting Power. A “substitute” is an organisation acting in place of a Protecting Power when agreement of Protecting Power nominations between Parties to the conflict cannot be reached.

A "substitute" is a delegated organization and must still be agreed upon by parties to the conflict. Article 106 further states:

3. Discharge of Responsibilities. As alluded to above, whilst there is an obligation upon Parties to the conflict to designate a Protecting Power, there is no guarantee that nominations will be acceptable to the adverse Party. Should there be no agreement after the subsequent intercession of the ICRC to mediate, then an offer by the ICRC or any other impartial humanitarian organisation to act as a ‘substitute’ Protecting Power, as defined in the previous paragraph, should be accepted. The Protecting Power will exercise its function through: a. Representatives. The normal diplomatic and consular personnel of the Protecting Power. b. Delegates. Persons appointed by the Protecting Power to discharge its functions under the GCs. Delegates will normally be nationals of the Protecting Power or of another neutral state. Members of the ICRC may also be appointed as delegates by the Protecting Power. It will normally be the Delegates who ensure, through physical checking, that PW are being treated in accordance with the GCs and AP I.

In the case of Afghanistan, the ICRC is not a "substitute" Protecting Power and the ICRC has made that clear.

To rely on the guidance in this document as definitive operational direction is folly. It provides a framework with the typical amount of "usual" and "ordinarily", but it is not a directive. In order to clarify the role of a Protecting Power another, more specific, document is required. One which would refer back to this one. That must exist since the ICRC is not acting as a "substitute". The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission is the authority monitoring prisoner treatment and O'Connor should have been aware of that right from the start.

Sorry, Stephen Taylor, your argument carries no weight.

The document in question is not false since it provides no definitive delegation of Protecting Power. It merely suggest which group might be, and in the case of the Afghanistan mission another organization has been given the task. A home-grown Afghani group with whom Canada has no extensive experience.

That O'Connor did not know this with authority indicates incompetence.

He's still on the hook for this one.

(Thanks to CC for the tip)

Harper working out of Bush's play book

Somebody check Stevie Harper's office and see if David Frum is hiding behind the chair.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused the Liberals of showing "passion" for the Taliban and not supporting Canadian troops Wednesday during a bitter exchange in the House of Commons after Grit Leader Stephane Dion called for the resignation of Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor.

"I can understand that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they’d show the same passion for Canadian soldiers," Harper said in the House of Commons.

Right out of the George W Bush, "You're either with us or, you're with the terrorists" play book.

Some reading for Harper and the incompetent fuck who calls himself a Defence Minister. Right here you disgusting pair of slimeballs. Article 3 and Article 4.

I know this is probably beyond the scope of a little prick like Harper, but ensuring the proper treatment of prisoners is as much a part of combat operations as aiming a weapon at functioning enemy.

You want to play the game, Harper? Then you play the whole fucking thing. You don't get to pick and choose what rules suit you. If prisoners are being handed over to another power and our commanders in theatre cannot confirm that those prisoners are being properly treated, then a war-crime is being committed.

Only Harper could translate a concern for protecting our forces from possible involvement in a war-crime as not supporting the troops.

(Hat tip West End Bound)

Not good enough!

Canadian Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor apologized to the House of Commons today for his statements regarding Afghan detainees capture by Canadian Forces and turned over to the Afghan government.

He had stated that the International Committee of the Red Cross monitored the treatment of those prisoners and would report any abuse or ill-treatment directly to the Canadian government. That statement conflicted with the mandate of the ICRC which, over the course of almost 140 years of existence, and particularly since 1949, has maintained a completely neutral approach to prisoner treatment and which maintains a dialog with the detaining country.

O'Connor's apology has to be taken at face value and we should accept his word that he did not intentionally mislead the House nor the Canadian people.

Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor apologized on Monday to the House of Commons for getting his facts wrong on who monitors detainees in Afghanistan.

He acknowledged that he provided “inaccurate” information when he told the House a few weeks ago that the Red Cross monitors detainees and reports back to Canada.

[...]

During his apology Monday, O’Connor said he made the mistake honestly.

“I regret any confusion that may have resulted from these statements. The answers I gave were provided in good faith. I take full responsibility and do so without hesitation,” O’Connor said.

Really?! And then... (Emphasis mine)

“Mr. Speaker I would like to be clear: the International Committee of the Red Cross is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities. The International Committee of the Red Cross provides this information to the country that has the detainees in its custody, in this case, Afghanistan.”

Let me be clear. They won't share information with Canada.

The ICRC is in a precarious position when dealing with belligerents. The only way they can be effective is to strictly observe the methods they have been employing for decades, and that is to persuade the detaining power to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners by way of mutual cooperation. This is from the ICRC's own policy paper: (Emphasis original)

First, what they do NOT seek to achieve: the liberation of prisoners (other than particular individual cases, on strict medical or other humanitarian grounds). The standard ICRC procedures, which are made clear with the detaining authorities prior to the visits, include registration of the prisoners; an overview of all facilities used by, or intended for, them; a private talk with any or all of them, to discuss any problems they might have over their treatment or conditions; the provision of standard forms for writing a brief message to their families (which after approval by the detaining authorities will be delivered by the ICRC, insofar as this is possible). If the prisoners agree, their problems are taken up with the authorities immediately, with the aim of trying to solve them. The reports written by the ICRC after each visit are given to the detaining authorities and are not intended for publication - the point being that detention problems are best solved through constructive dialogue based on mutual confidence, rather than in the glare of publicity which inevitably carries the risk of politicizing the issues. This is why the ICRC will not comment publicly on such issues as possible problems concerning the transportation of prisoners or their conditions of detention.

That piece of information has been in existence for a considerable length of time. In fact, that information was a part of the Canadian Forces "Officer Professional Development Program" in the 1980s, a mandatory series of examinations based on self-study, one of the topics being "Military Law" with a strong emphasis on the Rules of Armed Conflict, Treatment of Prisoners of War and the involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

O'Connor would have been required to complete the OPD program while still serving in the army. Which means he should have been aware of the ICRC limitations on reporting the treatment of detainees.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that O'Connor has a relatively large staff which should be researching this material. How is it that he can step into the House of Commons and utter statements which are so far from accurate that they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the details of prisoner and detainee monitoring?

With full knowledge of the principle of "shit rolls downhill", I'm fairly confident that someone in DND, very near the minister's office wore the can for this, but that's not the point.

It took two minutes for me to look up and republish the information above from the ICRC's website. Two minutes. And I don't work for Mr. O'Connor.

Accepting that O'Connor did not intentionally mislead us, that leaves only one other conclusion. O'Connor did not do, or did not demand that his staff carry out, due diligence in answering a question of policy regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners handed over to the Afghan government.

O'Connor is incompetent.

His next act should be to go to his office, take out a pen and paper and write his resignation from cabinet. He is not fit to hold responsible office.