Olympic-sized Shame

It will be, and should be for everyone watching, nearly impossible to really enjoy the 2008 Olympics knowing the horrendous backdrop in which it is set - a modern-day China that is centuries behind in the way its government treats its native peoples and those it has colonized in places like Tibet.

As Johann Hari writes in Britain's The Independent:

...many of us want to believe we are being tolerant – and even anti-racist – by sticking our fingers in our ears when it comes to the conflict within China. Why? Because our silent societal taboo: we aid and abet the Chinese dictatorship every day. Through our government. Through our corporations. And – crucially – through our choices at the till. At some semiconscious level, we don't want the Chinese people to be allowed to speak and assemble and think freely – because it would mean we had to pay more.

How many times have you chosen a store item, seen the label "Made in China", felt a tiny twinge of guilt - aware of the many human rights abuses of the Chinese government - yet bought the item anyway because it was cheap? Companies like Wal-Mart count on that appeal:

...there is no question that the chain is helping accelerate the loss of American jobs to low-wage countries such as China. Wal-Mart, which in the late 1980s and early 1990s trumpeted its claim to "Buy American," has doubled its imports from China in the past five years alone, buying some $12 billion in merchandise in 2002. That's nearly 10% of all Chinese exports to the United States.

That's what human rights have become in this world: cheap.

And we further cheapen them not just by the shopping choices we make but by turning the other way when faced with the stark reality of oppression and cruelty dressed up in the guise of healthy capitalism or fighting for our freedoms in the wars we endlessly fund and excuse.

The subjugation of human rights is big business. While the current outrage in the US is over the furor about the Iraqi government oil profits not being directed to reconstruction (guess what, Americans? you destroyed the place, you didn't impeach the warmongers, you fix it), have you heard anyone lately complaining about the fact the the CIA's "black budget" is classified?

Although figures are not available after 2000, the Inspector General calculated the CIA has siphoned $1.7 trillion in 1998, $2.3 trillion in 1999 and $1.1 trillion in 2000. This entire CIA funding process, of course, has dubious constitutional authority, but is allowed by various Congressional enactments and secret approval given by the Executive branch and high-ranking congressional leaders.

Trillions of US dollars unaccounted for - used for foreign coups, torture programs, secret prisons, kidnappings, murders, and covert ops that no one will ever know about - and Americans are complaining that the Iraqi government has $80 billion stashed away for its future?

So, while George Bush is predictably performing political theatre by scolding the Chinese government over its human rights abuses - (is this the face of a man who's seriously concerned about human rights?) - a message from a president who once mused about how things would be so much easier if he was a dictator (and he's been a de facto one anyway, considering the lack of congressional willingness to oversee his long list of abuses and crimes) - the shade is still very much drawn over what the CIA and world leaders do behind closed doors in the name of "furthering capitalism" or "protecting national interests" while pretending to care about rights. Code phrases for patting each other on the back while looking the other way as ordinary people are severely harmed by whatever policies they choose to cook up without ever consulting the very people they're supposed to represent. See: Energy Policy, Cheney ie. the death of the Kyoto Protocol and the massive enrichment of oil tycoons and war profiteers thus resulting in US corporate monsters like Exxon-Mobil running teevee ads suddenly trying to convince everyone how "green" they are. It's all one gigantic propaganda farce.

China is just another link in that chain and far be it for any corporation's employees to actually state what's really going on, as CNN's Jack Cafferty found out earlier this year when he was forced to semi-apologize for stating the truth about China's governmental "goons and thugs" - an apt description of most world leaders at one time or another. And, as Cafferty noted, China owns so much US debt that although the USA likes to tout itself as Number One in every possible way, it's actually becoming a subsidiary of China's wealth. How's that for back door colonization?

The biggest dollar surplus country today [2006] is China. Globalization is in fact just a code word for dollarization. The Chinese Yuan is fixed to the dollar. The US is being flooded with cheap Chinese goods, often outsourced by US multinationals. China today has the largest trade surplus with the US, more than $100 billion a year. Japan is second with $70 billion. Canada with $48 bn, Mexico with $37 bn and Germany with $36 bn make the top 5 trade deficit countries, a total deficit of almost $300 billion of the colossal $480 deficit in 2002. This gives a clue to US foreign policy priorities.

What is perverse about this system is the fact that Washington has succeeded in getting foreign surplus countries to invest their own savings, to be a creditor to the US, buying Treasury bonds. Asian countries like Indonesia export capital to the US instead of the reverse!

The US Treasury and Greenspan are certain that its trade partners will be forced to always buy more US debt to prevent the global monetary system from collapsing, as nearly happened in 1998 with the Russia default and the LTCM hedge fund crisis.
[...]
But debt must be repaid you say? Does it ever? The central banks just keep buying new debt, rolling the old debts over. The debts of the USA are the assets of the rest of the world, the basis of their credit systems!

The second key to the Dollar System deals with poorer debtor countries. Here the US influence is strategic in the key multilateral institutions of finance—World Bank and IMF, WTO. Entire countries like Argentina or Brazil or Indonesia are forced to devalue currencies relative to the dollar, privatize key state industries, cut subsidies, all to repay dollar debt, most often to private US banks. When they resist selling off their best assets, tehy are charged with being corrupt. The growth of offshore money centers in the Caribbean, a key part of the drug money cycle, is also a direct consequence of the decisions in Washington in the 1970's and after, to deregulate financial markets and banks. As long as the dollar is the global currency, the US gains, or at least its big banks.

This is a kind of Dollar Imperialism more slick than anything the British Empire even dreamed of. It is a part of the current America "Empire" debate no one mentions. Instead of the US investing in colonies like England to earn profits on the trade, the money comes from the client states into the US economy. The problem is that Washington has allowed this perverse system to get out of all control to the point today it threatens to bring the entire world to the point of collapse. Had the US instead promoted long-term policy of investing in the economic growth and self-sufficiency of countries like Argentina or Congo, rather than bleeding them in repayment of unpayable dollar debts, the world would look far less unstable today.

Again, the US government - Republicans and the precious Democrats - have allowed this situation to become what it is today. That's why Bush's little scold has absolutely no meaning. All of the major world powers are in these abuses together. No need to wonder why the genocide in Darfur continues or why a leader like Hugo Chavez poses such a threat to this world order.

While the mainstream media has now been forced to at least provide some coverage of China's human rights abuses, aided by groups like Amnesty International which has thankfully been on the case for decades, the spotlight is at least now shining on the continual suffering in Tibet, the plight of parents under house arrest who lost children in the Sichuan province earthquake now forbidden to speak to foreign journalists about how the Chinese government's shoddy building standards contributed to those deaths, the continuing oppression of members of religious groups like Falun Gong, the ever-present deadly threat of unbelievable pollution, the jailing of political dissidents and the seemingly never-ending list of other governmental abuses of the Chinese people - all aided and abetted by western governments.

In the days to come, however, we will again be treated to clips of Chinese Olympic volunteers learning proper etiquette (no spitting!) so as not to insult foreign visitors while the networks will go out of their way to no doubt show the tourist attractions of China as if that can provide cover for the horrendous reality so many Chinese people suffer daily. People like those forced out of their homes (in an effort not unlike the US eminent domain scheme) in order to beautify the country as Chinese government leaders attempt to save face.

There's nothing small about the Olympics but even the massive spectacle of a show put on by the Chinese government can't hide its true shame. In the end then, we are all victims - the athletes, the spectators who just want to watch some friendly competition - knowing that, as Amnesty International reports (video), China's human rights situation has become worse since it was awarded the games. The idea that the Olympics would bring positive changes for the Chinese people is a myth.

Let the (political) games begin continue...
 

Canada's Government Secretly Suspended Afghan Detainee Handovers Last Fall

The minority Conservative government was under heavy fire from all of the opposition parties last year over reports of the alleged torture faced by some Afghan detainees who had been turned over to Afghan authorities. Anyone who followed those House of Commons debates during Question Period or the resulting media covergae will recall the standard talking point: The Taliban & al Qaeda lie about torture just to get attention - the same line used by Donald Rumsfeld when he was confronted about similar torture allegations.

You'd think that if the Conservatives actually had a real defence to those charges - something to back up their claim that they were investigating them - they would have presented it. Instead, they held their ground and defended the detainee transfer agreement that had been signed by General Rick Hillier in 2005 and then modified the agreement in an attempt to make Canadians believe that they were on top of the situation.

We now learn that the Conservative government secretly stopped the transfer of detainees to the Afghan government last November - in the midst of the entire mess. In other words, they've lied to all of us yet again.

OTTAWA–In a secret policy shift almost three months ago, the Canadian government stopped transferring Afghan prisoners to local authorities upon witnessing evidence of torture, according to a bombshell letter.

The revelation comes a year after the Conservative government ridiculed its opponents for raising torture allegations and Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused them of being pro-Taliban.

The abrupt shift was divulged in a letter submitted this week by federal lawyers to a pair of human rights organizations that have launched a case in Federal Court.

A prisoner told Canadian officials he'd been beaten unconscious, whipped with electrical cables, belted with a rubber hose, and he told the Canadians exactly where they could find the torture instruments.

After showing them a bruise, he led the Canadians to his prison cell where they discovered the hose and cable under a chair.

That Nov. 5 account is one of numerous allegations of torture included in government documents filed in advance of a Federal Court appearance Thursday. Another one describes electrocution.

Civil libertarians and opposition parties have warned that Canada could be violating the Geneva conventions by turning over captives to Afghan authorities with the knowledge they could be tortured.

Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association have sued Ottawa in an effort to block further transfers – and the resulting court documents are the only reason Canada's policy shift has come to light.

When Amnesty International pressed for details about the Nov. 5 incident, government lawyer J. Sanderson Graham sent the group a letter this week explaining what happened next.

Graham said Canadian authorities were informed of "a credible allegation of mistreatment " during that visit with prisoners in an Afghan detention facility.

"As a consequence, there have been no transfers of detainees to Afghan authorities since that date," said Graham's letter.

"The allegation is under investigation by the Afghan authorities. Canada will resume transferring detainees when it believes it can do so in accordance with its international legal obligations."

And this ought to be the final nail in this government's coffin after all of the ranting and raving they did last year against anyone who dared to bring up the torture allegations:

The Conservatives did not officially confirm the policy change, calling it an operational military matter that is the sole responsibility of the Canadian Forces.

"The government will not provide any comment on operational matters," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

Suddenly it's an "operational military matter"? Just how obtuse does this government think Canadians are? It wasn't an "operational military matter" when the Conservatives went out of their way day after day to try to reassure Canadians that the detainee agreement was being followed. (Remember when they said the Red Cross was checking in on those detainees, only to have to admit later that they were wrong when the Red Cross contradicted that so-called "fact".)

Just what else is this government lying about and, more importantly, how on earth can they continue to do so while peoples' lives are at risk? They were told repeatedly that allegations of torture resulting from Canadian soldiers handing over suspects to the Afghan government also put our soldiers at risk. If Harper and his worthless cabinet had actually been thinking, they would have realized that a public announcement regarding the suspension of the detainee handovers last fall could have helped to minimize that possibility. Instead, they said nothing - other than to continually insult anyone who brought up the concerns. Once again, they've backed themselves into a corner and Canadians are left to bear the brunt of what they have done as they further tarnish this country's reputation with their reckless disregard for human life.

How long will we allow this to go on? Are we supposed to trust these lying bastards to properly investigate what's happened?

A spring election can't come soon enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Related:

CBC News has more on files released to the BC Civil Liberties Association in this case outlining the torture allegations as a result of their FOIA request.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says it obtained the heavily censored documents as part of its court case in conjunction with Amnesty International demanding that the Canadian military stop the transfer of prisoners.

The association said the documents, made available on its website on Monday, are an exchange between diplomatic and Foreign Affairs Department personnel who visited various facilities in Afghanistan.

The diplomatic communiqués — marked "secret" — disclose that Canadian officials were aware that the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) engaged in forms of torture of prisoners after they were transferred into NDS custody, the rights group said.

The documents contain summaries of interviews with detainees, who report being whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and beaten unconscious while in Afghan custody. One detainee interviewed showed fresh welts on his body, then led Canadian investigators to discover a hidden electrical cable and rubber hose he said was used to strike him.

Dates and other key information on the documents have been blacked out, making it difficult to determine the time frame of the exchange. The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that the reports were filed six months after the Canadian government put in place what it said was an improved transfer agreement with Afghan authorities to monitor detainee treatment.

Among the several prisoners who declined to give their names to Canadian officials, one who said he was beaten with electrical cables while blindfolded said he wanted to remain anonymous "as to avoid any possible repercussions," one of the documents said.

The documents also describe the sometimes poor record-keeping by Afghan authorities, as well as the difficulty Canadian officials encountered in trying to determine whether the detainee they were visiting at facilities was captured by Canadian forces, or was even the person they were seeking to interview.

The BC Civil Liberties Association has a pdf file of these documents on their site. I'll post updates on the court case as they come in.

Update: 78th Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan
 

Video: The Abuse of Secrecy in the Arar Affair

From CBC's The National, Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada and security analyst Wesley Wark discuss the newly uncensored portions of the Arar Inquiry report.



As one who also covers American politics and the battles between congress, the White House and organizations like the ACLU over claims of executive privilege wrapped in the mantra of national security, I have to say that Canada's system appears to place us light years ahead when it comes to demanding and getting transparency in these types of cases (although sometimes these victories can take a very long time to be realized). That type of regime of secrecy cannot and will not be tolerated in this country, as much as Stephen Harper's paranoid Conservative government wishes to make it so.

I recently had the occasion to reread the Reader's Digest 2006 interview with Stephen Harper, Man With a Plan, in which he was asked about the comparisons made between him and Bush. Note his cluelessness:

RD: Are there comparisons that offend you?

Harper: Yes. The Bush comparisons offend me. And not because I have any kind of personal dislike of George W. Bush. I don’t. It’s that the comparisons generally are not thoughtful. Bush has SUVs in his motorcade, and I have SUVs in my motorcade—“Ha ha, he’s just like George Bush.” Well, of course, this is actually the decision of the RCMP, and I’m sure George Bush didn’t pick out the cars in his own motorcade either. That kind of thing bothers me because it’s just a stereotype designed for polemical purposes.

No, Steve, you're compared to Bush because of your love of absolute control and as these new Arar inquiry revelations show us, that hammer you like to bring down on the Canadian people by fighting against things that might embarrass security or other officials implies a twisted sort of reasoning that is well beyond what most Canadians ought to find acceptable.

One would think that, when it comes to ensuring the safety of all Canadians, allowing us to finally see the inner workings of CSIS and the RCMP and how they contributed to an innocent man being tortured would be considered to be an absolute necessity so the same behaviour will never be repeated again. We cannot rely on our security agencies to police themselves, obviously, and as the interviewees point out, the current oversight regime is "fractured".

The Harper government's attempt to cover that up serves no one except those who prefer to remain complicit in such human rights abuses. That was the bottom line in arguing that these documents remain censored. The revelations do not pose a threat to our national security. Not revealing those portions however had the potential to enable CSIS and the RCMP to continue ignoring their own, very serious problems.

In the inquiry report, RCMP officials seemed to be tripping all over themselves to claim that they hadn't worked with the CIA prior to 9/11 - as if that was a good enough excuse to not understand how the CIA operates. And of course we now know that CSIS knew about the CIA's extraordinary rendition (torture flights) practices and still either naively trusted the CIA or just didn't care enough to ensure a Canadian citizen's rights would be protected. The official line seems to be that the CIA just pulled a fast one of Canadian security officials who supposedly had years of experience. How can that possibly be justified and what kind of prime minister would choose to cover that up?

Harper needs to be reminded at every turn that he works for the Canadian people, not his own interests or those of people who have the power to place our lives in jeopardy.

As Alex Neve said, keep the pressure on your MPs and government officials by letting them know that we will not put up with this subversion of our right to know the facts. We will not allow Harper to operate as Bush Lite.
 

Harper Gov't Pulls a Fast One on the Afghan File

So, now that the Harper cronies have been caught with their political pants down on the Afghan detainee transfer file, they've decided that springing a new agreement the same morning as the legal case hits the courts is the appropriate way to deal with the situation?

OTTAWA — The Harper government has struck a new detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan that includes stringent safeguards for follow-up monitoring to prevent torture and abuse that were previously absent, it was revealed in federal court today.

The new deal signed this morning in Kabul by Canada's new ambassador to Afghanistan, closes the gaping holes that rights groups claim existed in the original agreement signed by chief of defence staff Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier in Dec 2005.

The announcement stunned a packed federal court hearing in Ottawa where a call for an immediate halt to transfers was about to being when lawyers for the federal government brought the new agreement to court.

Federal Court Judge Michael Kelen told the court the deal was a major development that took the urgency out of deciding whether to block future transfers.

“It probably wouldn't have happened if this court hadn't been happening,” he said as he announced a postponement of proceedings.

Well, that's convenient, isn't it?

More via CP:

The new arrangement allows Canadian officials greater access to insurgents turned over to the Afghans by Canadian soldiers. Among its provisions is a guarantee that captured fighters can be interviewed in private without the intimidating presence of their Afghan jailers.

The government negotiated the deal despite insisting that the allegations of torture are false. The Conservatives hope it will put an end to two weeks of bad press over their confusing and contradictory statements on the detainee issue.

"What we have done is enhance the 2005 agreement - that is exactly what people were calling for," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

But Amnesty International, which launched the Federal Court challenge on behalf of detainees, said the new deal isn't good enough.

"Canada is still not complying with its international obligations," said spokesman Alex Neve.

"This agreement does not sufficiently protect people from the risk of torture after being transferred and that's the bottom line."

Human rights groups note that prisoners often don't admit to having been tortured - especially when they're still in jail - out of fear of more torture.

The only solution, Neve said, is for Canada or NATO to establish a detention facility where Afghan guards can be properly trained to respect human rights.

The Federal Court case has been put on hold pending further examination of the transfer agreement.
[...]
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the new deal merely formalizes commitments the government already has from the Afghans.

"We have access (to prisons) and can get information whenever we want it," he said in Vancouver.

He also repeated that the allegations of torture are "unsubstantiated" - but there has been no investigation into the claims.

They still don't get it.

And round and round it goes:

The agreement comes despite the fact that Harper has assured the House of Commons that the old deal was working well.

The Conservative government has also insisted that allegations of abuse are false even though no investigation has been conducted.

Since allegations surfaced that at least 30 detainees - captured by Canadians and turned over to Afghan authorities - might have been abused, the Conservatives have offered varying explanations.

After days of denying knowledge of any "specific" allegations of torture, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day revealed Monday that Canadian correctional officers in Kandahar had indeed reported torture claims by two detainees.

Despite that admission, the government's submission in the Federal Court hearing states that: "Canadian officials have not received any notification of mistreatment or torture of detainees transferred from Canada to Afghan authorities."

Amnesty lawyers asked for a copy of the written report submitted by the officers, but was denied on the grounds that it violated national security.

And the kicker?

The government submission also reveals that the Canadian Forces have two procedures for handling Afghan detainees, including one that does not involve any oversight by human rights groups.

The documents show that Canadian troops are authorized to hand some detainees directly to Afghan authorities, rather than take them prisoner. That would appear to circumvent rules that require Canadian soldiers to notify human rights monitors when they detain Afghan militants.

You'd think that the judge in this case, armed with that knowledge, would have granted the injunction to temporarily halt the transfer of detainees.

The more that's revealed about this file, the murkier it gets.

Related: Liberal party statement on the latest tory maneuverings.
The NDP declares O'Connor is Unfit for Duty
The Galloping Beaver has a post about General Rick Hillier's political grandstanding.
The BC Civil Liberties Association site.
Amnesty International Canada
Human Rights Watch Afghanistan page. Are we going the way of the US military with these cases?
 

CDN Defence Department Tries to Block Detainee Investigation

Why is our defence minister now trying to block an investigation into the fate of detainees who've come forward to say they were tortured after being handed over to Afghan officials by the Canadian military in Afghanistan?

The answer's in that question, obviously.

Via the CP:

OTTAWA (CP) - The Defence Department says it may go to court to block a military watchdog from investigating a complaint about Canada's handling of prisoners in Afghanistan.

If it goes to court, lawyers might still be arguing long after Canadian soldiers have left Afghanistan.

The move could lead to a court showdown between the department and the Military Police Complaints Commission, or it could prompt the commission to take its investigation into the open with formal public hearings.

The department questions the jurisdiction of the commission to look into the complaint filed last month by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

The rights groups said Canadian military police handed prisoners over to Afghan authorities, even though they should have known that Afghan police and the security directorate "routinely torture prisoners." They cited 18 specific cases of individuals who were turned over to the Afghan system.

The department, however, argues that there's no evidence that any prisoner handed over by Canadians was ever tortured.

Isn't that for the commission to determine?

Stan Blythe, chief of staff to the commission, said the government's letter was unusual.

"They've essentially asked this commission to explain their intentions ... and that seems like a very unusual thing to ask a tribunal to do. We are, after all, an independent tribunal with a statutory jurisdiction."

The commission was also counting on the department for help in obtaining documents and witnesses. If the department goes to Federal Court, that kind of co-operation is unlikely.

However, Tinsley has the option of calling public hearings. He decided against hearings initially, but could change his mind.

"If there is a lack of co-operation ... that's a factor which could lead the chair to reconsider and call a public hearing," said Blythe.

Good. Make it public.

The defence department is obviously just trying to block the complaints filed by Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association with the heavy-handed tactic of endless litigation. What is O'Connor so afraid of? Most likely that there my be some actual truth to the allegations especially since the agreement Hillier signed with the Afghan government was not legally binding and did not offer any oversight from anyone as to the fate of the transferred detainees.

This is supposed to be the government of accountability. We all know what a farce that mantra has been to this point and now we have even more proof of that.
 

Hillier: 'No Regrets' About Detainee Agreement

"No regrets". That's what General Rick Hillier told the press about the agreement he signed back in December, 2005 with the Afghanistan government that was supposed to offer protection for detainees Canadian soldiers transfer to Afghan authorities.

“We think the agreement was pretty solid,” Gen. Hillier said. “We perhaps have improved it with this latest initiative, which really formalizes something which was informal and if we see opportunity to do better ahead we will.”

No regrets? "Pretty solid"?

That 2005 agreement offered no oversight by the ICRC and there have been numerous complaints of alleged abuse since then that are only now being investigated. The agreement wasn't even legally binding.

When Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association recently called for a judicial review of the treatment of detainees who were transferred, they also noted:

The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Hillier has also refused to allow these detainees access to legal counsel before being transferred to the Afghanistan authorities. Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association state that this is also contrary to the right of individuals detained by Canadian Forces to retain and instruct legal counsel without delay under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yet Hillier has "no regrets"? Maybe that's because he's getting a free ride without being held accountable for his failed decisions.

Related:
Hillier is Insulted
Canadian Military Secretly Signs Agreement with Afghan Human Rights Watchdog
3 Afghanistan Detainees Have Disappeared
O'Connor's Damage Control Trip to Afghanistan
 

Does O'Connor Know Where the Missing Detainees Are?

Bolstered by a few cagey smirks defence minister O'Connor, in response to questions by Jane Taber on Sunday's CTV Question Period about the fate of the missing Afghan detainees, responded with vague hints that he actually knows where they are. "Everybody can be found", O'Connor said, adding that we should "wait until the end of the investigation" to find out what happened to them. "We'll wait to see whether they're missing or not", O'Connor added.

What exactly does that mean? And if he knows where they are, why isn't he admitting that? It would seem to be incredibly naive to publicly imply that the DoD knows where the detainees are. If they actually escaped custody to run from their alleged crimes, they've now been told that this defence minister has a handle on their location. If they are in hiding because they were abused while being transferred and/or detained, they've now been told that their location is unsafe. Either way, they will most likely disappear once again which will only frustrate any investigation into their alleged abuse by Canadian forces.

The only other possibility is that the DoD has them in custody somewhere and isn't admitting it.

O'Connor is far too comfortable with how alleged suspects are treated once Canadian forces hand them over to the Afghanistan government.

"We're there in support of the Afghan government and when we get insurgents who break the law we hand them over to the authorities," O'Connor said.

First of all, it's not up to the Canadian forces to decide who has broken the law. That's the role of the courts.

"We want assurances that they're treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I know according to the rules of law they don't have to be treated under the Geneva Convention, but we insist that they are. We are reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor this and now we're asking the human rights organization to also do it."

The problem with relying on the ICRC is that it is not required to make its findings public. That problem was highlighted when a confidential report about the treatment of detainees at Gitmo was leaked in 2004. So, while O'Connor says he can be assured by ICRC reports, we have no way of knowing about the real circumstances facing detainees who are handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops. O'Connor also added that he wasn't aware of any reports back from the ICRC about the detainees who have been handed over to Afghan authorities but he added that the ICRC is "quite pleased" with what the Canadian forces do. So, which is it, O'Connor? Is the ICRC reporting to you or isn't it?

Furthermore, O'Connor seems to be blissfully unaware of what the Canada-Afghanistan agreement says:

The Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that detainees will not be tortured by Afghan forces. Canadian officials are not given the right to monitor detainees after they have been transferred. And although the agreement anticipates that detainees first held by Canada may be moved onwards to the custody of a third country it fails to provide safeguards to ensure they will not be subject to torture or even execution. The previous practice by Canadian Forces of transferring detainees directly to United States forces led to serious human rights violations in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The clear possibility of further transfer of detainees to United States custody remains under the current agreement...

In addition, Afghanistan's human rights organization was only brought into the picture last week when a secret agreement was signed after the news of the alleged abuse of the 3 detainees was splashed all over the front pages and following Amnesty International's call for a judicial review, although O'Connor said on Question Period that this agreement had been in the works since June 2006. That's hardly comforting. Why would it have taken so long to process such a straightforward agreement with a body concerned about human rights?

This just doesn't add up and Canadians, along with those in Afghanistan who are being tranferred over to the authorities there, deserve far more than this continual deception being fostered by this defence minister. I have a feeling that once these 4 investigations into what happened to these Afghan detainees wrap up, O'Connor won't come out smelling like the rose he seems to think he is.