The Torture Coverup: Today's Developments

- The military police complaints commission hearings are scheduled to resume in March, 2010, "but whether the federal government actually lets it proceed is uncertain." Meanwhile:

The Liberals turned up the heat on the Tories Thursday by using their opposition day to introduce a Commons motion to force the government to release documents on the detainee issue.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused the government of censoring with "Soviet zeal" and demanded to see all records related to incident referred to by Natynczyk.

- I really don't know why Ottawa-centered journalists think this issue has no legs outside of their little bubble. The latest EKOS poll shows that the majority think Afghan detainees were tortured and that this government knew about it.

Only Conservative supporters are slightly less likely to believe that the government was aware that prisoners might be tortured. Even so, nearly 68 per cent of Conservative supporters think the government was aware of that possibility.

That is definitely significant. And the fact that parliament will go on hiatus tonite for its holiday break does not ensure that this scandal won't come back with even more force in the new year - especially since Richard Colvin is drafting a rebuttal to the testimony of the government-friendly witnesses.

The fact that the one 2006 incident that we know of (and which alludes to others), thanks to the affidavit of Noonan in 2007, is front and center again 2 years of being shelved shows that the Conservatives can't run away from reality or accountability.

When that incident came to light in May, 2007, Peter Van Loan was the government's bully-boy who tried endlessly to make it go away. He called it "roughhousing". More recently, General Lewis MacKenzie, appearing on the right-wing talk radio David Rutherford Show in Calgary this week said he wasn't all that concerned about some guy being beaten up. Shit happens. It's a war. Rick Hillier recently minimized the incident as well. These generals don't seem to care that Canadian soldiers were so concerned about the fate of their transferred detainees that they resorted to taking before and after pictures because they knew abuse was happening. They weren't listened to. Their reports were dismissed and censored.

When Peter MacKay gave his opening statement to the special committee on Wednesday, he said that torture was "abhorrent". But it obviously was not "abhorrent" enough for him to pay attention to as foreign minister since he then went on to pathetically justify his inaction by droning on repeatedly about how "complex" the Afghanistan situation was. He should have just admitted that he was too incompetent to handle all of the duties he was responsible for at that time.

On top of all of that, and this is perhaps one of the most shocking revelations about this government's disdain for the law considering it's coming from our current Foreign Affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, in his opening statement he wondered why people were "fixated on the well-being of individuals who are suspected of being our enemies". (h/t BCCLA blog) He obviously refuses to even acknowledge the Geneva Conventions. This is the same man who banned the phrase "child soldiers" from the department's vocabulary and took "humanitarian" out of the phrase "international humanitarian law".

Typical of this Conservative party - thinking they can make issues of justice disappear by simply censoring them.

That obviously hasn't worked. And Cannon's performance has been despicable.

...this April [2009], when Cannon blamed Omar Khadr, a former child recruit of Al Qaeda held since 2002 at the U.S. detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, for making bombs that killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

"We saw this man apparently making the same bombs that have taken the life of a certain number of our soldiers," he said, referring to TV footage of Khadr making bombs. The comments were false.

Khadr was not in the vicinity where Canadians were operating at the time. A retraction followed.

It's clear that the Conservative agenda is to fearmonger and paint their critics as enemies of the military as long as they think they can get away with it. The problem is that actual evidence is corroding what little shred of credibility there was that they thought they had in the first place. They are their own worst enemies. If they truly believed in their collective innocence, they would release all of the documents they have - unredacted - in order to prove it. Instead, they are fighting their release every step of the way using the tired "national security" excuse.

And, in case you're keeping score, it's now:

Former Canadian ambassadors: 71

Conservatives: 0
 

Natynczyk Changes his Testimony

Schadenfreude:

General changes story on Taliban suspect

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top military commander, is now saying a suspected Taliban fighter abused by Afghan police in June 2006 had been detained by Canadian troops, contrary to comments the defence staff chief made Tuesday.

"The individual who was beaten by the Afghan police was, in fact, in Canadian custody," Natynczyk told reporters in Ottawa on Wednesday.

Natynczyk had told a parliamentary committee that Canadian troops questioned the man who was picked up during operations in Zangabad. But Natynczyk said it was the Afghans who took him into custody.

On Wednesday, Natynczyk said he has since received new information and has learned that Canadians had taken the suspect into custody before handing him over to the Afghans.

Natynczyk read from a report of the incident by the section commander, who said they had the suspect get down on his stomach before they conducted a detailed seach [sic] of the Afghan, which included emptying his pockets, cataloging all the items and photgraphing him.

"I did not have this information in May of 2007 nor yesterday when I made my statement. But I am responsible for the information provided by the Canadian Forces and I am accountable for it today," Natynczyk said.

Damn straight he's responsible. And he's either lying or incompetent:

The Canadian soldier's account, handwritten in a field notebook in the hours after the June 19, 2006 incident, is corroborated by a medic's examination of the detainee's injuries and photographs, which the government refuses to release. The account, first outlined in a May, 2007 affidavit by Colonel Steve Noonan, Canada's first task force commander, was subsequently confirmed by then Brigadier-General Joseph Deschamps, who was chief-of-staff for operations in Canada's expeditionary forces command when he was cross-examined about it in January, 2008.

After Col. Noonan's first disclosure of the incident, the military denied the detainee ever really qualified as a Canadian captive. Then Lieutenant-General Walt Natynczyk – who has since been promoted to chief of defence staff – issued a statement in May 2007 denying that the beaten detainee had originally been captured and transferred by Canadian troops.

“Media reporting of a specific example of an individual detained by Afghan Authorities are inaccurate,” Gen. Natynczyk said in a statement.

And Peter MacKay, who's been pushing the Canadian heroes [read: generals] always tell the truth - screw the diplomats and soldiers on the ground meme for weeks just got his already red face politically slapped.

On top of that, the number of former ambassadors chiding MacKay for going after Richard Colvin has now risen from 23 yesterday to near 50 today (h/t this-on-that) and calls for his resignation and a public inquiry are growing.

"The minister has on nine separate occasions told the House there is not a scintilla of evidence of mistreatment even as the entire country was shown evidence that torture did take place," said the NDP's defence critic Jack Harris. "Will he resign?"

Instead, Mr. MacKay's parliamentary secretary, Laurie Hawn, mouthed "bullshit" as opposition MPs insisted the government knew of transfers to torture.

There's "bullshit" and then there's Toryshit.

In response to Ignatieff's question about this bombshell today, Harper said (with a straight face), "General Natynczyk has indicated what the government has said from the very outset."

And what would that be, Steve? That there were no credible reports of abuse?

Stay tuned this afternoon when MacKay is set to appear before the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan along with Lawrence Cannon and former defence minister (who was forced to resign over his lies on this file) Gordon O'Connor. (This is turning out to be all rather special, isn't it?) You can watch it live on CPAC's site at 3:30 pm ET.
 

Mulroney Contradicts MacKay

Ever since Peter MacKay has been under fire about allegations of torture in Afghanistan during the period of 2006-2007, he has repeatedly said in the house that the transfer agreement was changed once the government had credible evidence to back up those claims.

From November 25, 2009, Hansard:

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, when officials at Foreign Affairs and officials at the Department of National Defence were in possession of credible allegations, they acted. Going back two and a half years the action began. The action began to clean up the mess that we had inherited from the party opposite. The action began to rewrite the transfer arrangement, to arrange for more prison visits and to train officials inside the prison.

But, here's what David Mulroney said during his opening statement when he testified in front of the special committee today.

From the video (approximately 7 minutes in)

When I took up my responsibilities at Foreign Affairs in February, 2007, the department was already exploring ways of engaging in monitoring and tracking detainees. At the same time, we had an exchange of letters with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, an organization for which we are a major funder, in which the AIHRC agreed to notify Canada should it learn of any mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees. In mid-March, we began detailed work to create a detailed contingency plan, a standard operating procedure in the event of well-founded allegations of mistreatment. We did this not because of confirmed instances of real and substantial risk of torture or mistreatment of Canadian-transferred detainees but because it was clear that what we had in place at the time could and should be further reinforced.

One of these men is lying.
 

It's Hillier Time

General Rick Hillier, who has already told the press that he doesn't recall reading any reports about Afghan detainee torture from Richard Colvin, testifies at the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan this afternoon along with two of his military colleagues. (Watch online at CPAC.)

The denials by Harper et al continued today during QP even in the face of media reports that the Red Cross [was] told late about prisoner transfers and a revelation in Le Devoir that supports Colvin's testimony:

...the lead story in Le Devoir, “Torture: Ottawa should have acted sooner," which has a senior official reporting that the prisoner transfer issue finally appeared on Ottawa’s radar screen around Christmas 2006. By then, “it was increasingly apparent to everyone that there were big holes in the Protocol and that there was a real possibility that inmates were being abused.” While not criticizing the Army, which was doing "difficult work in a difficult environment" our source says that they "did not take this issue [of torture] seriously".

The Cons are betting the farm on Canadians lapping up every word of David Mulroney, who is hurriedly flying back from China this week to contradict Colvin's testimony when he appears before the committee on Thursday. Mulroney, without offering up any documentation, is more credible you see because Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay say he is. Case closed.

Except that it isn't. Not by a longshot.

During Hillier's opening statement, he said that he didn't receive any reports of torture in 2006. If that's true, why was it necessary to change the detainee transfer agreement? He even contradicted himself about who the detainees were. They weren't just "farmers", he maintained - then saying that, okay, maybe some of them were farmers but the military let them go. Or they were "farmers by day, Taliban by nite".

Between Harper and his various denialists, there are holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Related:

Colvin says he sent torture reports to minister's office

and...

Canadians tend to believe Colvin: poll

A Canadian Press-Harris/Decima survey released Wednesday suggests twice as many Canadians believe Colvin's testimony than believe, as the government states, that he lacks credibility.

The survey found 51 per cent of respondents believed Colvin's statement that prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities were likely abused and that the government knew of the problem.

Twenty-five per cent said they believed the Harper government's assertion that Colvin's claims are flimsy.

Update:

Colvin testimony on detainee torture 'ludicrous': Hillier

Feds bar whistleblower diplomat from handing over torture documents to MPs

but...

Evan Solomon on CBC this afternoon reports that Colvin's lawyer said today that Colvin will give the documents he has to the committee - obviously risking the legal sanctions the Harper government has threatened him with.
 

Torture in Afghanistan: The Coverup Continues

This is all very simple: if Peter MacKay wants to be believed when he says that no Afghan detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military were victims of torture, he needs to release all of the relevant documents to prove his assertion. As long as he refuses to do so, he and his Conservative government don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

(And they certainly don't deserve to be cut any slack, no matter what Chantal Hebert thinks. Is anybody out there denying that this "mess" started with the Liberals? No. I didn't think so.)

Peter MacKay can't have it both ways - but he'll definitely keep trying. He and his Con buddies have spent days smearing Richard Colvin and insisting that he couldn't prove that there were any "credible" allegations of detainee abuse. Yet, here's what MacKay admitted today when his back was against the wall because of General Natynczyk's weekend revelations:

"Most recently the reason that the transfers stopped was that the Afghan officials were not living up to ... expectations," MacKay said during question period in the House of Commons.

He told Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff that the government acted as soon as "credible allegations came to our attention."

Meanwhile, Colvin is unable to properly defend himself.

As he stated during his opening statement last week:

In October 2007, I left Afghanistan and started a new job in Washington, D.C. In April 2009, I was subpoenaed by the Military Police Complaints Commission. In response, DFAIT, in collaboration with the Department of Justice, took three significant steps.

First, they’ve made it very difficult for me to access legal counsel. This ongoing problem has still not been resolved.

Second, DFAIT and the Department of Justice, again working together, blocked my access to my own reports from Afghanistan. I was told, “We will decide which of your reports you require.” I was given none of them.

Third, government lawyers have threatened me under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. This had the effect of placing me in an impossible position. If I refuse to co-operate with the MPCC subpoena, I could be jailed for up to six months, but I did co-operate under section 38 I could be jailed for up to five years.

When this warning was sent, DFAIT and the Department of Justice, again acting together, were still withholding approval for legal counsel, depriving me of legal advice and protections.

So, MacKay is free to strut and crow while Colvin remains under threat from a government that absolutely refuses to allow the man to back up his testimony with actual evidence.

This is democracy? This is Canada?

With General Hillier set to invoke the Alberto Gonzales "I don't recall" defense when he testifies this Wednesday, followed by an emergency damage control effort by David Mulroney who has requested to appear as well, the Cons will continue to dig in their obstructionist heels as they attempt to hide the truth.

The lingering question is why?

And the only obvious answer is that they can't afford to let that truth be known. And not for Canada's sake - as they continue to insist. This is all about politics. Human rights be damned.
 

Peter MacKay is Lying About Detainee Abuse

Via the CBC:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay defended his government Thursday in the face of claims that detainees in Afghanistan were routinely abused by Afghan authorities after being handed over by Canadian soldiers.

"There has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian forces," MacKay said Thursday in the House of Commons.

His comments came a day after Richard Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's Afghanistan mission, dropped a political bombshell on Parliament, alleging that suspects handed over by Canada to Afghan authorities were tortured, and that the government was at best indifferent and at worst tried to cover it up.

Flashback to May, 2007:

Federal opposition parties continued to hammer the Harper government yesterday over the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan after revelations that the Afghan police beat up a detainee given to them by the Canadian Forces.

Colonel Steven Noonan, a former task-force commander in Afghanistan, disclosed the incident in a Federal Court affidavit that forms part of the government's response to a legal challenge by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to stop all further detainee transfers.

Col. Noonan's sworn evidence was cited by the opposition in Question Period to demonstrate that the Conservative government was far from telling the truth when its members repeatedly denied that they had no specific examples that any detainee transferred by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities was later subject to abuse or torture.

The Canadian military responded by accusing Noonan of lying under oath and then they shut down the story based on "national security" concerns.

And if the Conservatives had any credibility whatsoever, they'd relish the chance to have a public inquiry considering that detainee abuse was also alleged to have occured under the previous Liberal government as well.

This, from the Globe and Mail in 2007:

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Afghans detained by Canadian soldiers and sent to Kandahar's notorious jails say they were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation.

In 30 face-to-face interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, a Globe and Mail investigation has uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops, despite Canada's assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.

Canadian forces regularly hold detainees for a few days of questioning at Kandahar Air Field, then give them to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's feared intelligence police. Over and over, detainees described how Canadians tied their hands with plastic straps, marking the start of nightmarish journeys through shadowy jails and blood-spattered interrogation rooms.

And it's no wonder that Hillier is denying allegations now being made by Colvin since Hillier and former Defence minister Gordon O'Connor allegedly committed war crimes.

This government cannot be trusted to investigate itself. Neither can the military.

It's long past the time for an independent public inquiry.

Related:

Wiki's Canadian Afghan detainee abuse scandal timeline.
 

Natynczyk: Canadian Troops Are Coming Home in 2011

General Walt Natynczyk's message to the Canadian government is clear: Canada's troops in Afghanistan are coming home in 2011.

Amid speculation over a future role for Canadian forces in Kandahar, Canada's top commander says he will withdraw all of the country's soldiers from the region by 2011.

"The parliamentary motion directs that it will be the end of the military mission in July of 2011. I mean those are the words that are there," Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk told CBC News in an exclusive interview. "And for me it's pretty clear. What we do for the Canadian Forces are military missions."

CBC News had previously reported that Natynczyk ordered his commanders to start preparing military plans to pull out of Afghanistan and return thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars' worth of equipment to Canada.

The government has insisted Canada's military mission will end in 2011. But its ministers and staff — including Defence Minister Peter MacKay — have suggested Canadian soldiers could remain in Afghanistan beyond that deadline, though perhaps not in combat.

The Cons have tried to dress up our presence in Afghanistan in the cloak of peacekeeping and nation-building for years now in an attempt to justify a less than complete pull out. Canadians aren't buying it and don't trust this government to abide by parliament's wishes.

...the prime minister's spokesman Dimitri Soudas told CBC News last month that Canadian soldiers would remain in Afghanistan. He suggested a force much smaller than the 2,800-troop mission currently in Kandahar.

But Natynczyk said he couldn't see a role for any soldiers in Kandahar that would respect parliament's declaration.

"We provide protection, we provide security, we enable governance, we enable development, we enable training. But our function is security and protection. That's the military mission."

Would you like some fries with that?

Our Canadian military: hard at work and apparently quite hungry:

Investigation launched after military helicopter touches down for burgers

KENORA -- A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Saturday an investigation has been launched after a Canadian Forces helicopter pilot landed in Kenora recently -- apparently to pick up some cheeseburgers.

“The matter is under investigation to determine what happened. As such, I can’t say much more until all the facts are gathered,” wrote Dan Dugas, the minister’s director of communications in an e-mail.

On Thursday, employees at an A&W fast-food restaurant were surprised to see a military pilot walk in and make a takeout order — while his helicopter was parked outside.

Michelle Patterson, who has worked at the restaurant for 16 years, said Friday she was shocked to see flying dust when the helicopter landed on a baseball diamond across from the eatery.

The pilot joked about wanting to go through the drive-thru but apparently said he wasn’t able to fit.

He ordered enough food for six people, and told her he was on his way to refuel at the airport before flying to Thunder Bay, Ont., and eventually back to Quebec, Patterson said.

The minister’s spokesman said there were no public safety concerns surrounding the landing.

“First of all, at no time during the landing or takeoff was there a danger to the public,” he said in the e-mail. “The Forces thank the local police for securing the sports field for the helicopter’s landing.”

He could not comment on how often military pilots touch down in public spaces to get dinner or what protocols need to be in place.

Kenora is 500 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay.

To be fair, everybody knows that A&W doesn't offer home delivery.

Peter MacKay or Monty Python: You decide...

OTTAWA — Peter MacKay denied Thursday that he was in a conflict of interest when he was a director of two family forestry companies while serving as a federal cabinet minister.

The defence minister and Central Nova MP acknowledged being in violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, which forbids ministers from serving on the boards of private companies, but he said that doesn’t necessarily mean he was in a conflict.

“As I have acknowledged, earlier this week I discovered I was not in compliance with section 15 of the act and took immediate steps to rectify the situation,” Mr. MacKay wrote in a letter emailed to The Chronicle Herald on Thursday. “A lack of compliance with section 15 does not, in itself, constitute a conflict of interest.”

Mr. MacKay objected to the headline on the front-page story: MacKay in Conflict of Interest.

“This headline is misleading, as it is simply not supported by the story you have published,” Mr. MacKay wrote. “Nothing in the story you have published establishes the existence of a conflict of interest.”

Shorter MacKay: It's only a conflict if it's a conflict and since it was a conflict, it wasn't really a conflict. Oh. And, "I forgot" so - no conflict. What's a tree?

Canada's ethics commissioner: That'll cost you $200.
 

Talking to the Taliban - 2008

It seems Peter MacKay now supports talking to the Taliban.

The Conservatives have softened their position on talking with the Taliban after a British general said that Western forces will never win against insurgents and negotiations may be necessary.

NDP Leader Jack Layton jumped on that Sunday, saying he was "heartened" by British Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith's comments to a London newspaper.

Later Sunday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the Conservatives would be "supportive of discussions" provided the talks were headed by the democratically elected Afghan government, and as long as the "terrorists" renounced violence.

Layton has said negotiations are necessary, but MacKay rejected that in the past. "We are not having direct discussions with terrorists. We won't, will not, that will not change," he said on May 4.

This is a complete reversal of the position the Cons have had for years.

As I noted in January, 2007:

During an October 2006 speech to the Canadian International Centre, Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay ridiculed NDP leader Jack Layton for suggesting talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan. MacKay, spouting the popular right-wing talking point, said such talks would only embolden the terrorists. As I pointed out in this September 2006 post, NATO leaders were already holding secret talks with the Taliban in August 2006 according to the Globe and Mail.

And, who can forget when Veterans Affairs minister Greg Thompson called Layton "Taliban Jack"?

It is no secret that in military circles the leader of the NDP--and I have a base in my riding as members well know, Camp Gagetown, and I have met many of the military types across the country--is referred to as “Taliban Jack”. That tells it all. The NDP does not support our men and women in uniform and they know it. The NDP record is deplorable. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.

Call we call MacKay "Taliban Pete" now?

Related:

Afghan victory hopes played down

The UK's commander in Helmand has said Britain should not expect a "decisive military victory" in Afghanistan.

Brig Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.

He said this could involve discussing security with the Taleban.

 

ACLU: Government Ordered to Release Detainee Abuse Photos

From the ACLU's site, a court decision that could have ramifications in Canada:

NEW YORK – A federal court today ordered the Department of Defense to release photographs depicting the abuse of detainees by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the government's appeal of a 2006 order directing the Defense Department to release the photos. Today's decision comes as part of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit seeking information on the abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody overseas.

"This is a resounding victory for the public's right to hold the government accountable," said ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh, who argued before the court. "These photographs demonstrate that the abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational and not confined to Abu Ghraib, but the result of policies adopted by high-ranking officials. Their release is critical for bringing an end to the administration's torture policies and for deterring further prisoner abuse."

Those who followed the Conservative's government's shoddy handling of the detainee abuse file in Afghanistan will recognize that the revelation of these photos could put an abrupt end to earlier claims that detainee abuse was just "Taliban propaganda" which our defence and foreign affairs department, along with the PMO and every single Con MP, used as an excuse to write off real concerns about what our military may have been involved in when it turned over prisoners to the US military (until that was stopped) and then to the Afghan government. Remember the infamous filibuster of committee testimony and the other ridiculous lengths the Cons went to trying to hide the truth? If this court decision is allowed to stand unchallenged and these photos are released, expect yet another house of cards to come crashing down.

 

Peter MacKay Caught 'Bending' the Rules

These Conservatives, they're just such an accountable bunch, aren't they?

Via the CP: Hospitality tab at Passport Canada costs taxpayers $16,800: document

The Canadian Press got it hands on a document that shows MacKay signing off on hospitality tab overruns for Passport Canada employees during the passport crunch last year.

Federal rules strictly govern hospitality expenses, especially when food and drink are provided free to civil servants.

The $16,800 hospitality tab - large, even by Ottawa's standards - was to buy lunches for 400 Passport Canada employees who were working weekends to cope with a crush of passport applications last year.

The government was caught off guard as record numbers of Canadians applied for passports to comply with tougher rules imposed by Washington for travellers entering the United States by air.

The employees had to work three weekends in a row to dig out from a massive backlog of applications.

Treasury Board rules allow civil servants to enjoy taxpayer-funded lunches if they're working outside of normal hours, although it's entirely at the discretion of a department. And if the cost is to exceed $5,000, it must be approved by the minister.

MacKay's approval came only after the civil servants had already chowed down on about $11,200 worth of free meals.

Peter Harder, then deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, alerted MacKay to the problem and asked for his approval as soon as possible "to minimize the amounts approved after the fact."

In a memo, Harder - who left the civil service for a law firm three days later - assured MacKay that "the positive aspect of reducing the operational backlog of passport applicants will far outweigh any public or media relations related to these hospitality expenses."

Shorter Harder: Just approve it. Canadians will get over it.

No thought given to the fact that they created the mess in the first place by agreeing to the paranoid and rushed provisions of the SPP.

A spokesman for Passport Canada did not respond to questions, including why the agency failed to seek the minister's permission before starting to provide the free lunches.

The hospitality tab does not appear in MacKay's or Harder's mandatory disclosure of such expenses on the Foreign Affairs website.

Busted.
 

Quote du Jour: War is just so 'romantic'...

At least that's what Commander Codpiece thinks:

President Bush spoke of his dream to work on the frontline in Afghanistan during a video conference with US military and civilian personnel in the war-torn country.

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said.

"If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," President Bush said.

I wonder if "romance" was on the minds of the Conservatives and Liberals when they voted to send more Canadian soldiers to their deaths in Afghanistan on Thursday. And to think they actually applauded when that motion passed. Disgusting.

Meanwhile, this vote was held before NATO announced its 5 year plan for that country. Surely that has been in the works for a while and it would have been useful information to have when it came to considering how to vote on this 2 year extension. Instead, the 2 major war parties (one just tremendously afraid of sparking an election - who cares about the life and death issues involved?) decided to carry on the Canadian mission until 2011, regardless of the fact that they have no idea how much it will cost in terms of dollars or Canadian lives. Peter MacKay even went as far as to say the troops would be "delighted" when they heard what they'd just been committed to. Delighted? I guess that's about as close as MacKay can come to saying it's nothing short of "romantic" to know that you could be killed at any moment, as his buddy Bush did.

If war is so romantic and delightful, why aren't those two warmongering mouthpieces over there enjoying the war up close and personal - with guns - on the frontline?

Update: March 14, 2008 - Welcome cursor.org readers! Just a reminder that the new winter soldier hearings are happening right now. Those veterans and related speakers deserve your support. Check out the link to find out how you can listen live. Archives and a blog that's open for comments are also available at Pacifica's site.
 

Pat Martin: Let the RCMP Investigate the Cadman Scandal First

Using the terms "treason" and "high crimes and misdemeanors", NDP MP Pat Martin told Craig Oliver on Sunday's Question Period that he will not introduce a motion to the ethics committee this week, as he had previously promised, to investigate the alleged $1 million bribe to now-deceased MP Chuck Cadman. Instead, Martin said that he thinks the RCMP should handle the file because any Conservatives involved in the affair who would testify before the committee would be protected by parliamentary privilege (ie. their testimony could not be used against them in a criminal prosecution). Martin left open the possibility of having the ethics committee hold hearings at a later date, following the results of the RCMP probe.

On Saturday, Peter Mackay denied any knowledge of the alleged bribe.

"I think it's sad, quite frankly, that this seems to have come up. It's very unfortunate.''

You bet it's "unfortunate" and that's just the least of it for your party, MacKay.

Related:

Liberals float theory on Cadman compensation
 

Failing Afghanistan's Children

While Peter MacKay and Bev Oda are busy telling happy war stories in committee today, what they will predictably leave out are real indicators of the failed efforts over the past 6 years in Afghanistan.

As IRIN notes, the focus on military expenditures is basically handing poor, young Afghan men and children to the Taliban:

"In our district many young guys join Taliban ranks for pocket money, a mobile phone or other financial incentives," said Safiullah, a resident of Sangeen District in Helmand.

They don't want much, yet they are being deprived by the mishandling of foreign aid and so-called development funds. And they are willing to risk their very lives to get what they need.

High levels of rural poverty or unemployment are probably helping to drive young people like Malik to join the Taliban.

Due to insecurity in the southern provinces there are no available unemployment figures. However, a report by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission on the social and economic rights of Afghans estimated that in some parts of the country the unemployment rate was as high as 60 percent.

Another reason why there are so many rural poor is the fact that agriculture, which employs over 60 percent of the estimated 26.6 population, has received only US$300-400 million of the over US$15 billion of international development aid given to Afghanistan since 2002, Oxfam International reported in January.

But, whenever US and Canadian government officials comment about Afghanistan's agricultural problems, their focus is on the issue of opium production, which has skyrocketed. The solution, they claim, is to eradicate the crops and offer legal substitutes to farmers in bed with the warlords and the Taliban. However, when such a minimal amount of foreign aid money is actually directed to such efforts, the farmers are cut off at the knees. They have no choice if they want to survive and feed their families.

US spending in Afghanistan amounts to approximately $65,000 per minute. In Iraq, that number is $250,000. Military spending in both countries far exceeds the amounts required to reach the stated goals of creating and sustaining anything nearing a civil society, while corrupt government institutions and officials also stand in the way of progress for the average Afghan.

So what are the children to do? Especially when they're also victims of domestic abuse who are expected to help out in any way they can - including contributing to the family's income? Obviously, joining the insurgency looks attractive as a quick way to accomplish that responsibility, especially considering that only "32 per cent of boys complete primary school while only 13 per cent of girls do so". (The next time you hear government officials boast about the fact that 6 million children are now attending school, remember those percentages).

And, as far as Canada's so-called contributions are concerned, the Senlis Council was highly critical of CIDA in 2007.

The failure to demonstrably address the extreme poverty, widespread hunger and appalling child and maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan — let alone boost economic development — is decreasing local Afghan support for Canada’s mission and increasing support for the insurgency."

Norine MacDonald, of the Senlis Council, said the problem is a structural issue because the money the agency does have is not ending up on the ground.

"When you're on the ground in Kandahar, it's sad to say, despite good intentions, CIDA's efforts are non-existent," MacDonald said.

"We are confronted every day by people without food, without water, without shelter, without medical aid. So our efforts are so minimal as to be non-existent."

Tuesday's Conservative government budget boasted that aid to Afghanistan would be increased by $100 million but, when you read the fine print, the majority of that money will go towards "security initiatives, such as training police, [and the] army". As Brian Hutchinson wrote in the National Post this week, you'd be hard-pressed to find any CIDA officials on the ground in places like Kandahar. Bev Oda, the minister now responsible for CIDA has come under attack recently by Senator Colin Kenny, who claimed that CIDA had no idea where its' aid money was ending up. CIDA officials countered that they have a solid trail, but note this reality:

"Last year, Canada spent $179 million in aid in Afghanistan, one-third of which flows through multilateral partners like the United Nations and World Food Program, with the remaining two-thirds given to the Afghan government.

The corrupt Afghanistan government:

Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, says the greatest threat to success in Afghanistan is not the resurgence of the Taliban but "the potential irretrievable loss of legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan."
[...]
President Hamid Karzai has admitted there is a problem.

"All politicians in this system have acquired everything – money, lots of money. God knows it is beyond the limit. The banks of the world are full of the money of our statesmen," Mr. Karzai said in November.

As noted in that article, and according to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, Afghanistan's government rates as one the most corrupt in the world. Obviously, CIDA's defence that it knows where its' aid money is actually going is specious at best, and blatantly dishonest on its face. So, while Conservatives like MacKay and Oda are once again busy trying to sell this war, going after the hearts and minds of the Canadian people by insisting that they only have the best interests of the Afghan people in mind, the facts state otherwise. And the idea that the Liberal party would support an extension of this failed, misguided and completely mismanaged mission only adds further insult to far too many injuries.

The Afghanistan people need help, but the current NATO-structured mission plan has failed. Just ask the Afghan children who would sacrifice their fate for "pocket money" from the Taliban.
 

Conservatives Behaving Badly: The Afghanistan Debate

From Monday's Hansard, our so-called "honourable" minister of Veterans Affairs:

Hon. Greg Thompson:

Missing in action, Mr. Speaker, hiding under the furniture. The member from Sackville is always on his hind legs in here ranting about what he would do, I guess, but his record speaks for itself. Those members have done absolutely nothing. For them to suggest that we are doing nothing is just fundamentally wrong, because we were asking for their support on the floor of the House of Commons in a minority Parliament. We were asking for their support to make this happen and they denied us that support. They voted against our veterans.

An hon. member: They scurried out.

Hon. Greg Thompson:

They did scurry out, Mr. Speaker, and they will continue to do that because they do not believe in the mission, they do not support our veterans, and they do not support our men and women in uniform. That is the sorry state of the NDP: all talk and no action. I guess that is why they are the fourth party in the House of Commons. I just wonder where their support is.

It is no secret that in military circles the leader of the NDP--and I have a base in my riding as members well know, Camp Gagetown, and I have met many of the military types across the country--is referred to as “Taliban Jack”. That tells it all. The NDP does not support our men and women in uniform and they know it. The NDP record is deplorable. Those members should be ashamed of themselves.

[...]


Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening, despite my mild laryngitis, to debate the motion that is now before us.

I am pleased to follow my colleague who very ably represents Ottawa Centre. I am also pleased to say he has succeeded me as the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party and doing an excellent job.

When I entered the chamber this evening, I was listening attentively and respectfully to the Minister of Veterans Affairs who was commenting, and I thought quite appropriately, that we all share a duty.

Those of us in this House who are privileged to serve the people of our communities, and Canadians generally, have an obligation to honour our military men and women, both in times of peace and in times of war. I was nodding in assent and was actually going to compliment him on being inclusive in representing all of us in those comments.

Then he turned and engaged in the most viscous, most vile, and most virulent attack on the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who is not here in the House in any way, shape, or form to defend himself and who, I have to say, has probably done more for veterans and for the military in my 10 years in Ottawa than any other member in this chamber.

Let Canadians be the judge, but I thought it was unfortunate and ironic. For a few brief moments the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I thought, was going to rise to the occasion, however, he actually descended into the depths and conducted a viscous attack on a man who has championed the veterans independence program and the widows that have been left behind. He has championed the children who are not getting the kind of treatment needed to deal with their wounds resulting from the death or injury of absent family members and returned family members.

He is also the man who has championed the victims of agent orange. I could go on and on, but I think we will just let those Canadians who know better come to their own conclusions based on the evidence and not based on this astounding rant that we just heard and is now on the public record.

I listened earlier this afternoon when the Minister of Veterans Affairs actually made some very sweeping statements that were dead wrong and utterly disrespectful. How those members elevate the debate, how they act to contribute to a respectful debate, I do not know, but I have to say he hit a raw never. He made a sweeping reference that New Democrats do not care about our troops. They never cared about the military. I do not know if he said never will, but I am sure that was in his mind too.

more...

At that point, Peter MacKay joined in and piled on the accusations against the NDP.

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am always puzzled when that member and members of the NDP cloak some of their questions and comments in this rhetoric of casting aspersions on everyone else in the House but then somehow draping this sanctimonious cloak over themselves to say that anybody else who makes a comment that might be the least bit offensive or rubs somebody the wrong way is terrible but they can do the same thing and not have that standard apply to them.

What I find even more troubling and contradictory is the suggestion that peace is just going to arrive, that it is just going to fall out of the air somehow in Afghanistan, that development will expand, that we will be able to build more schools and roads and that more programs will simply appear without any security. That is where there is such an absolute disconnect, bordering on disillusionment, when we hear this coming from the NDP.

As for her umbrage taken at the comments made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, she should check the record. The truth hurts. When we check the record and see the actual voting pattern over the last 10 years by that member and other members of the NDP when it comes to support for the military and veterans, the record speaks for itself.

Yes, it does speak for itself, MacKay. The NDP has no interest in engaging in endless wars just to prop up the military-industrial complex - disguised and sold as humanitarian intervention. It also has no interest in seeing more Canadians killed in the name of Bush's war on terror. The truth hurts, doesn't it Mr MacKay?

This "debate", with Conservatives flinging out whatever charges they think might stick, is absolutely insulting to Canadians. This is about life and death, but the Conservatives are treating it like a schoolyard fight and the fact that the Liberals are propping them up and cheering them on is disgusting. The Liberals - who still claim to have so many questions about the compromise motion offered by the Conservatives - yet who refuse to suggest any amendments. You would think that the one thing they would know by now is that when you support the Conservatives, you end up getting stabbed in the back. And, worse, our soldiers will be paying the actual, physical and psychological price for their willingness to trust such a vile bunch of warmongers who have repeatedly failed to tell Canadians the truth about what's happening in Afghanistan. It's an endless cycle of death and destruction, thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration, and no motion in our parliament can fix that, no matter how its spun.

Bring our troops home now.
 

What are we doing in Afghanistan?

If you've had the chance to listen to various Conservatives on the floor on Monday speaking to their government's motion to extend the mission until 2011, you would assume that Canada wields a tremendous amount of power over the future of that country and that, as the Veterans Affair minister, Greg Thompson, stated (vilely) that those who oppose the extension are friends of the Taliban and enemies of our Canadian troops. Yes, he even repeated the smear (in the guise of hearing it from soldiers who live in his riding) that the NDP leader, Jack Layton, has been nicknamed "Taliban Jack". Speaking not long after that, Peter MacKay backed up Thompson's insults, feigning outrage to the point where he almost needed a fainting couch and a cold compress for his forehead. MacKay continued to hurl his insults at Alexa McDonough as she had the floor to the extent that she had to ask the chair to call for order.

This, from a government that vowed to restore dignity to the house.

But that's not my main point.

Last week, the British government admitted its part in torture flights at the behest of the US government. Today, a former member of the SAS revealed that:

Hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British and American special forces were rendered to prisons where they faced torture...
[...]
Ben Griffin said individuals detained by SAS troops in a joint UK-US special forces taskforce had ended up in interrogation centres in Iraq, including the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, and in Afghanistan, as well as Guantánamo Bay.

As we know, the US SecDef Robert Gates has been on a tour to guilt EU countries into sending more combat troops to Afghanistan. His repeated insults haven't worked. Nor should they.

The Bush administration and the Pentagon have undermined the Afghanistan mission for years by not providing enough troops, through the use of useless contractors like DynCorp who failed to train Afghanistan's police, by its unbalanced focus on military rather than reconstruction spending and by continuing to fund Musharraf to the tune of $10 billion while he has done nothing to stop the flow of fighters from Waziristan - not to mention the horrendous human rights abuses it continues to foist on the Afghan people, as noted above. Our Veterans Affairs minister stated very clearly on the floor today that Canada "will continue to support Pakistan" unconditionally despite concerns about its massive failures. And, as this government's record shows, it prefers to cover up allegations of torture and corruption rather than dealing with it head on.

So, as much as some Canadians might want to think that our troops can actually make a difference in Afghanistan, the larger picture shows that we are being hoodwinked, indeed sabotaged, every step of the way by the US government which only recently has taken a renewed interest in this forgotten war by resorting to the tactics it knows best: bullying and intimidation. Sound familiar?

The Conservatives, however, will have none of that talk. They prefer to push the idea that we are there in a peacekeeping role; that we have to stay there or else the scary terrorists will attack us here even though the longer we're there the more we place our country at risk. They proclaim from their moral pulpit that we owe it to the Afghan people to stay there until they are safe (which, apparently, will automagically happen in 2011 according to their motion). They certainly refuse to talk about their military spending increases because that's supposed to be seen as being patriotic. They rehash numbers about how things are going in Afghanistan that are the same ones they've been using since they first came into power. They believe that only foreign intervention can save the Afghan people while they spend massive amounts of money on military hardware. How insulting. They insist that Canada is such a great country that it can make all the difference there. What they fail to explain is how that's possible when our allies are detaining, torturing and killing innocent people.

That's the question that needs to be asked in all of this. The rest is just moot, empty rhetoric.

Related:

Since the Conservatives like to talk about how far Afghan women have supposedly come, I thought I'd provide this link to The Plight of the Afghan Woman for a realistic look at what they still face despite the fact that foreign forces have been in Afghanistan to "help" them for more than 6 years now.
 

NATO Commander Contradicts Peter MacKay

As I noted in an earlier post on Monday, Peter MacKay had this to say following the two most recent suicide bombings:

...Peter MacKay said he he would not describe the latest violence in Afghanistan as an escalation.

However, NATO commander Craddock has a different view of the situation:

BRUSSELS, Feb 18 (Reuters) - Guerrilla attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan will rise this year as insurgents resort to such tactics in the face of a growing NATO presence, the alliance's top operations commander said on Monday.

Why would MacKay say otherwise?

a) to lull Canadians into a false sense of security while the Harper gov't plans to extend the combat mission.

b) because MacKay doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

c) because MacKay doesn't talk to the NATO commander.

d) because the Conservatives are completely inept.

e) because that's what Stephen Harper told him to say.

f) all of the above.
 

Kandahar's Governor Blasts the Canadian Military After Suicide Bombing

On the heels of the second suicide bombing in Afghanistan in two days, the death tolls from both attacks currently standing at 136, the notorious governor of Kandahar accused the Canadian military of ignoring 6 warnings that such an attack might happen in the area, concluding it had put Afghan civilians in danger.

The military's response was this:

...a military spokesman said the Canadian Forces make the decisions on where its soldiers will patrol.

"We regularly receive threat warnings and obviously we go where we want to, when we want to in our area of operation," said Lt.-Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky.

"We obviously take notice of these warnings but our aim is to operate freely within our area of operation despite those."

Shorter Babinsky: you're not the boss of me.

Fine. But at what cost?

NATO troops have repeatedly been slammed by Karzai over civilian deaths and in a country where our soldiers are supposed to be winning hearts and minds as part of the counter-insurgency tactics, that arrogant statement by Babinsky certainly won't help the mission. There's a difference between being in charge of military maneuvers and writing off Afghan intel efforts that another suicide bombing is being planned. 4 of our soldiers were also wounded as a result. Was it absolutely necessary that Canadian troops be in Spin Boldak on Monday to the point where the commanders decided to move through despite the warnings?

Meanwhile, our utterly clueless defence minister, Peter MacKay, said these bombings don't signal an "escalation" in violence. Well, when 136 people are killed in 2 days, I certainly don't know what else you can call it. Just how many more people have to die in record numbers before MacKay acknowledges reality?

Update: The death toll from today's bombing has reached 38, with 30 Afghans critically wounded.
 

Pakistan, the US, Afghanistan and Canada

The US/Pakistan relationship is truly fraught with irony as this statement by Bush Monday morning reveals:

WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush is urging Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to quickly return to civilian rule and release people detained under an emergency decree, the White House said on Monday.
[...]
"We cannot support emergency rule or the extreme measures taken during the emergency," Perino said. "Such actions are not in Pakistan's best interest and damage the progress Pakistan has made on its path to democracy."

"The president and his advisers ... right now are urging him to quickly return to civilian rule, to get back on the path of democracy, to restore the freedoms of the press as well as release detainees," she said. "The president continues to urge calm on all of the parties."

This, coming from an American administration that declared a "global war on terror" and was quick to grant itself extra-judicial powers to round up its own cadre of detainees following 9/11. Musharraf, after all, is just claiming the same situation in his country - that he imposed emergency rule to clamp down on militants - which is, of course, not the real reason. Realizing that his presidency was threatened by a supreme court that was due to rule that his win in the October election was moot, he did what he thought he could to hang onto his power just as Bush has used to GWOT excuse to shred the US constitution for years on end. There is no formal "emergency rule" in the US, but the power grab by Bush has virtually mirrored to a lesser extent what Musharraf has now put in place in Pakistan.

And what would happen if Bush actually did declare emergency rule in the United States? If an ongoing illegal war with thousands of US casualties and millions of dead and displaced Iraqis and the knowledge that his regime has been spying on Americans while condoning torture against suspected terrorists hasn't been enough to stop Bush in his tracks by the harshest legal measures possible; with an opposition party constantly whining about how they can't seize power back from the oval office and the Republicans while refusing to impeach their president; and with a population that's just on hold - waiting for Bush's term to simply end while hoping that will bring some relief or change - would anyone really rise up if Bush grabbed even more power? And really, just how much more can he grab since he gets away with virtually everything he wants to anyway?

But, back to Pakistan. This morning, Canada's defence minister Peter Mackay spoke about what seems to be his main concern for Canadian troops in Afghanistan - a possible flood of refugees from Pakistan who might then join the Taliban and al Qaeda. Tens of thousands of displaced Afghans have been returning for years. This is not a new development. What he failed to mention was the delicate military support relationship between the US/NATO and Pakistan ie. how the US has funneled billions of dollars to Pakistan's military in an attempt to keep militants at bay in the north while Pakistan has provided logistical help for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan (such as it is, since there is major support for the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan). That's the real threat to NATO's Afghanistan mission.

Meanwhile, Washington has very little choice as far as supporting Musharraf goes and, although Bush will bluster on with words of disappointment the international community expects to hear, his precious grip on the GWOT is tenuous:

A senior security official speaking to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, said, "Major surgeries are essential in cases like Lal Masjid [a militant mosque in Islamabad], but such extraordinary events need extraordinary powers. If the courts intervene in such matters, the security forces will stop working and nobody will be able to stop the march of the Taliban into the bigger cities of Pakistan."

The official continued, "This is a major crossroads in the 'war on terror' at which Washington will have to approve an all-powerful government, even at the cost of democracy. Otherwise it can say goodbye to Pakistan as a 'war on terror' ally as it [Pakistan] would simply not be able to get results."

Once again, Canadian troops will have to deal with the consequences of the disastrous decision Bush made to pull US troops out of Afghanistan to start his illegal war in Iraq and our Canadian Conservative minority government has just been handed another reason to continue Canada's mission past its currently expected exit date in 2009 - a move it's been trying to justify by any means possible despite opposition by a growing majority of Canadians.

Musharraf's decision will ripple through our country. What are we going to do about it? How much more are we going to sacrifice for Bush's mistakes?

Related:

Pakistani Bloggers aggregator
Video: Pakistani police use batons and tear gas against stone-throwing lawyers protesting over Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule
U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Pakistan shakes off US shackles
A look at rights suspended in Pakistan
Musharraf defends emergency rule

Update: Bush holds a press conference and doesn't commit to doing anything:

Bush would not discuss what action he might take — for example, how much U.S. aid to Pakistan would be cut — if Musharraf ignores his request.

"It's a hypothetical," he said. "I certainly hope he does take my advice."

But the president made a point of praising Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror, and seemed resigned that, as a result, there is little concrete action he can take to influence Musharraf's behavior.

"All we can do is continue to work with the president ... to make abundantly clear the position of the United States," he said.