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.
 

Quote du Jour: Man Without a Conscience

Hillier minimizes detainee abuse:

Mr. Hillier derisively compared the political uproar that surrounded Mr. Colvin's parliamentary testimony to people “howling at the moon” and said nobody ever raised torture concerns with him during the 2006-2007 period in question.

“I don't remember reading a single one of those cables [from Mr. Colvin] ... He doesn't stick out in my mind,” Mr. Hillier said of the diplomat's warnings and criticism.

“He appears to have covered an incredibly broad spectrum, much of which I'm not sure he's qualified to talk about.”

The former soldier rejected suggestions Canada was “complicit in any war crimes” – saying Ottawa had a responsible system in place. He also played down the fact Afghan prisoners got hurt in jails.

“Even in our own prisons [in Canada] somebody can get beaten up. We know that.”

- The Globe and Mail

At least he didn't call it "fraternity hazing".

But let's get real: the man is lying to cover his ass:

Retired general Rick Hillier, who led Canada's 2006 military foray into southern Afghanistan, joined the Conservatives in dismissing Mr. Colvin's story. He told a Toronto audience Thursday night that he can't recall ever coming across reports from the diplomat, who was a senior Foreign Affairs staffer in Afghanistan for 17 months.

From the Globe and Mail, April 2007:

The Harper government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security forces faced the possibility of torture, abuse and extrajudicial killing, The Globe and Mail has learned.

But the government has eradicated every single reference to torture and abuse in prison from a heavily blacked-out version of a report prepared by Canadian diplomats in Kabul and released under an access to information request.

Initially, the government denied the existence of the report, responding in writing that "no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists." After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released a heavily edited version this week.

Among the sentences blacked out by the Foreign Affairs Department in the report's summary is "Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common," according to full passages of the report obtained independently by The Globe.

The Foreign Affairs report, titled Afghanistan-2006; Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, was marked "CEO" for Canadian Eyes Only. It seems to remove any last vestige of doubt that the senior officials and ministers knew that torture and abuse were rife in Afghan jails.

Canadian News Roundup: Popcorn Edition!

- We, on the left, have been waiting for this headline for a long time: Tory headquarters raided.

OTTAWA- The RCMP is raiding Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa at the request of Elections Canada, confirmed an investigator.

Police officers in civilian clothes, but wearing flak jackets and one wearing a holster, entered and left the offices at 130 Albert Street, but refused further comment. They were searching suites on the 12th and 17th floors of the downtown building where senior Conservative party officials work.

Elections Canada officer Andre Thouin left the headquarters carrying a box of what he said were "documents that concern me," but he declined further comment, other than to say the RCMP was helping to carry out "an order."

The Cons, acting like true maroons during question period today, kept insisting that they had turned over all relevant documents to Elections Canada related to this investigation:

Elections Canada and the Conservative party have been engaged in a protracted legal battle over $1.2 million in alleged campaign spending irregularities from the 2006 election.

The party allowed Tory candidates to claim expenses for TV commercials that were produced for the national campaign.

The Conservatives insist the transactions were legal but Elections Canada disagrees and rival parties have labeled the scheme outright fraud.

Peter Van Loan called this an "imaginary scandal". It's not so "imaginary" when you have the RCMP raiding your offices, is it Van Loan? I guess your "imaginary" lawyers will have to defend this "imaginary scandal" in "imaginary" court.

- Bonus news of the day: General Rick Hillier has resigned, effective July 1, 2008. About damn time. Hillier has been serving as a political mouthpiece for the Afghanistan war for years. He's been nasty, explosive, arrogant, and cocky towards anyone who's challenged him. I guess he'll have ample time now to prepare his defence against war crimes charges filed against him. Good riddance.

- Speaking of Afghanistan, the tories have yet another scandal to deal with:

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- A quiet campaign by Canadian diplomats, who have been working to ease the governor of Kandahar out of his job, was thrown into chaos yesterday as Canada's Foreign Minister, Maxime Bernier, shattered months of secrecy and spoke out against the governor in public.

Canadian officials initially believed that Mr. Bernier had taken an important step in advancing their agenda over the weekend, when he met privately with President Hamid Karzai and asked him to replace Governor Asadullah Khalid, who has been dogged by accusations of torture and corruption. Calls for the governor's removal have grown louder this year, after The Globe and Mail's Paul Koring reported on Ottawa's attempts to conceal allegations that Mr. Khalid was personally involved in the torture of detainees.

Afghanistan's President told the Canadian delegation that a new governor would be appointed for Kandahar "within weeks," said a senior official who attended the meeting.

That promise is now more difficult for Mr. Karzai to keep, according to Canadian and Afghan sources, because Mr. Bernier's comments yesterday gave the impression of Canadian pressure on a President who is often satirized as a puppet of foreign masters.

"In light of this, it's much less clear what will happen next," a Canadian official said.

"There's a bit of scrambling now."

Whoops!

This is the same Harper government that was recently accused of providing cover for Kandahar's governor. I guess he's become disposable since then.

- Speaking of coverups: Ottawa tries to halt military probe of Afghan prisoners. What is the Harper government so afraid of? The truth, obviously. They've mishandled this detainee file from the start. If they actually had any integrity, they'd expose exactly what happened. That's a huge "if" though and they're proven time and time again that they'll run from any threat of being held accountable for their actions.

- And, in another blow to the government, "Terror charges stayed". Looks like a really bad week for the tories. What goes around, comes around.

Update:

- I forgot to add one item. Wondering what's driving the Immigration minister's power grab? How about this headline? "Alberta pursues 41,000 foreign workers"
 

Canadian News Roundup

- So, I was watching CBC teevee's live coverage of Rick Hillier's testimony about Afghanistan to the foreign affairs committee which was interrupted by a news conference about the horrendous murders in Merritt, B.C. this past weekend. Since CBC didn't resume its coverage of Hillier, I thought I'd check out the site of the foreign affairs committee only to discover this. Besides the title and the 'Home' and 'Francais' buttons, there's nothing else there. I know the Cons enjoy screwing around with the committees as outlined in their 'dirty tricks' manual that was revealed last year, but scrubbing a committee website is a bit much - even for them. If someone can find an actual working page for this committee, let me know.

- RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George has been found guilty of contempt of parliament. That's as far as it goes though. It's just a slap on the wrist. I guess perjury isn't that big of a deal anymore.

- Despite the news today that industry minister Prentice has blocked the sale of the MDA space division to an American interest, MDA isn't giving up. Will the tories cave? I'm betting yes.

- The roadkill queen over at smalldeadanimals.com (who won't get a direct link from me) is being sued for libel - along with a few other Canadian wingnuts. My heart does not bleed for any of them. What goes around comes around. Canada's Michelle Malkin wannabe is raising money for her 'legal defence fund' but won't even say how much she's received or what her defence actually is - besides a big whine fest about how horribly persecuted she is. Sucks to be you guys but that's what you get when you constantly spew fearmongering venom day in and day out. Right-wingers were just full of glee when they heard that their dear leader was suing the Liberal party over the Cadman affair. But when one of their own finds themselves having to defend against a libel suit, all of a sudden the laws are so unfair! (Call the wahmbulance.) Some of the commenters over at the roadkill site are even trying to track down the complainant's home address - a tried and true Malkin technique - while others seem to think there's some sort of criminal case to be made against him. For filing a lawsuit? Really bright legal minds over there. Not.

- Actress Sarah Polley spoke out about the C-10/censorship bill today. Do you trust this government to make "moral" decisions on your behalf?

Ironic quote du jour:

While Verner appeared ready to negotiate with artists, not all Tories were in such a conciliatory mood.

In the press release, the Conservatives took specific aim at Polley. She has been a vocal NDP supporter and once lost a pair of teeth when the riot squad aggressively broke up an anti-Mike Harris demonstration outside of the Ontario Legislature.

"Individuals with vested personal and political interests should be honest with Canadians on what their true intentions are,'" said Pierre Poilievre, an Ottawa-area MP.

"Hard-working Canadians are growing increasingly tired of special interest groups telling them what to do."

Especially the bedwetters in your party's back pocket, Mr Poilievre.

Speaking of bedwetters, I see Charles McVeety of the so-called Canada Family Action Coalition is whining about this issue on CBC's Politics. He seems to be quite concerned over the film "The Masturbator". Mind you, I think he just really likes saying "Masturbator" in public. You know how those repressed conservative types are. Then again, maybe he's just worried about folks going blind.
 

Quote du Jour: Hiller's Emotional Blackmail

Via the G&M:

"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not.

"And, certainly, there is a perception out there that the Taliban will try to take advantage of the debate back here and try to prevent a cohesive mission and will indeed attempt to attack our Canadian Forces in Kandahar."

Hillier, once again sticking his nose in the politics - where it doesn't belong - while he also gets things ass backwards.

Let's look at his logic: the Taliban are increasing their attacks because Canada's government is talking about pulling out in 2011 while it's also asking for more NATO troops and equipment. Now, if I were a member of the Taliban, I'd be thinking "hmmm...if we increase our attacks, that will actually justify more NATO troops being sent here right now...not good for me." But Hillier seems to think that the Taliban are attacking because Canada's looking shaky in its commitment.

Look General Hillier, no matter what happens, it's obvious that Canadian troops will be in Kandahar until at least the end of our current commitment in February, 2009 and if the Taliban increases its attacks, that's one huge argument for extending the mission beyond that. So wtf are you talking about?

Stop treating our troops like pawns in your political game. If you had any respect for them, you wouldn't accuse them of not having a "cohesive mission". And beyond that, if you were truly concerned about their welfare, you'd insist that they be brought home because this war is a no-win situation no matter how you slice it.

Big sale at the Clue Store™ this week - stock up, Hillier. While you're at it, pick up the book, "How Not to be a Conservative Government Mouthpiece". You might learn something.

Update:

Great minds think alike. I see pogge used the term "emotional blackmail" as well.

Dave has more.
 

Is the Harper Government Providing Cover for a Torturer?

The Globe & Mail lays out the case:

The Harper government knew, but tried to keep secret since last spring, allegations that the governor of Kandahar was personally involved in torture and abuse of detainees.

The allegations against Governor Asadullah Khalid, appointed directly by President Hamid Karzai and a key political partner to Canada's nation-building efforts in southern Afghanistan, were regarded as sufficiently credible that senior officials in Ottawa were immediately informed and Canadian diplomats secretly reported them to the International Red Cross and Afghanistan's main human-rights group.

Government documents detailing the accusations were heavily censored by the government which, claiming national security, blacked out the references to “the governor.” But multiple sources, both inside and outside the government, confirm that the words “the governor” have been censored as have whole passages referring to secret cells allegedly run by Mr. Khalid outside the official prison system.

Last spring was the time that Harper et al were very busy trying to convince Canadians that any torture allegations coming out of Afghanistan were just Taliban propaganda. Today, even after the government finally had to admit that there might be credible cases of detainees being tortured, the Cons' pit bull on the issue - Peter van Loan - called the allegations against Khalid and the obvious cover up "histrionics and hyperbole." We didn't believe them the last time they used such a weak, ad hominem defence and there's certainly no reason to believe them this time either since documents confirm that there were concerns raised about Khalid and his secret prisons.

Rumours have long linked Mr. Khalid to secret prisons. That he had close ties with U.S. intelligence agents and special forces had been known since Canadian troops arrived in southern Afghanistan in early 2006. But Ottawa didn't confront an accusation of the governor's direct involvement in the interrogation and torture of prisoners until it sent diplomats to inspect the main secret police prison in Kandahar on April 25, 2007.

“Another prisoner beckoned to us,” begins the crucial passages describing the first inspection of the secret National Directorate of Security police prison in Kandahar city.

The detainee, like others in the secret police jail, was in leg irons, according to the documents. He told the Canadians his name and described how he initially had been imprisoned for nearly a year, most of the time shackled alone in a room in one of the governor's private prisons. “He went on to state he had been interrogated by foreigners and the governor,” said the report by Gavin Buchan, a Canadian diplomat and Linda Garwood-Filbert, the head of the Canadian Corrections team in Afghanistan.

“He alleged that the governor beat him and gave him electric shocks,” Ms. Garwood-Filbert wrote in her inspection report. Eventually the prisoner was moved to the NDS prison where he gave his account to Canadian officials.

Within days, senior Canadian diplomats had passed on the reports to both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

It also looks like government lawyers attempted to obstruct justice by not fully releasing the information concerning Khalid:

One meeting was with the International Committee of the Red Cross; the other with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. When the briefing note was finally made public late last year as part of the government's delivery of documents in the Federal Court case brought by Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, it also had the words “the governor” blacked out, multiple sources have confirmed.

Despite sharing the allegations with the Afghan government and outside agencies, Ottawa kept them from a Canadian Federal Court judge hearing a case brought by Canadian rights groups. It claimed the national security exemption.

Why would Khalid be protected by claiming the release of his possible involvement in torture would be a "national security" risk? That's a handy Bush-like excuse for not revealing the truth about torture allegations. It's the same reason Maher Arar's case against Rumsfeld and the US government has had to go through appeals.

The G&M notes that we, the lowly peasants, have no way of knowing if the accusations against Khalid were investigated and it's important to keep in mind that he is a darling of the Bush administration and now, apparently, of the Harper government as well.

In other news on the torture front:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The Afghan human rights agency charged with investigating the condition of arrested insurgents says it wants to reopen talks with Canada about turning detainees back over to Afghan authorities.

A spokesman for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Agency says they weren't told by Canadian officials that they'd stopped transferring detainees to Afghan authorities in November.

Farid Hamidi says the agency learned of the policy change from the media last week and only after that were they informed that the Canadians have arrested between 18 to 20 people since that time.

He says the assumption is that they are being held at the Kandahar Airfield, but he doesn't know that for sure because his agency isn't being kept in the loop.

Yet another secret.

This entire detainee debacle is a classic display of the incompetence of this government and its ferocious need for secrecy. What possible excuse could it have for not telling Afghanistan's Human Rights Agency that it had supposedly suspended transfers? I'm sure they'll shout "operational security" about this major whopper too.

Meanwhile, Rick Hillier is saying that if Canadian troops remain in Kandahar past February 2009, they will have to be in a combat role.

Oh....and...wait for it... :

Hillier also refused to comment on the number of detainees currently being held by Canadian Forces at their military base in Kandahar, citing the need for operational security.

Either I'm psychic or this government is way too predictable.

Related:

German troops to stay in Afghan north (despite Gates' "strongly worded letter")

Senators Challenge White House Approach on Afghanistan

Taliban shifts tactics in Afghanistan

Australian troops 'still needed in Afghanistan in 15 years'

Rice heads for London as Afghan crisis looms
 

What is Hillier Hiding?

I'd like someone from this new, "US Joint Chiefs of Staff" sounding "Strategic Joint Staff" to tell me exactly how releasing the number of Afghan detainees handled by the Canadian military may: "be very prejudicial to the safety of CF [Canadian Forces] and allied personnel, may be of significant information operations value to the enemy and may assist in undermining the effectiveness of Canada's efforts to support the stability of the Government of Afghanistan,”, as reported in Monday's Globe and Mail.

And I would also like to know why the DND is using the Bush trick of reclassifying formerly unclassified documents as per this ridiculousness:

..Lt.-Col. Clarke suggested it had been a mistake for DND to release information about detainees earlier and that the department was rethinking its disclosure policy.

“In the process, we are learning that some of the information that may have been previously released in response to an Access to Information Request can be used against CF personnel and objectives in the operational theatre,” he wrote, adding that any additional information could help the enemy get a better picture of Canadian operations.

It's kind of late to stuff that back into the box now, isn't it? If the DND truly believes that it put Canadian troops in harm's way by releasing that information, everyone involved should be fired immediately and that includes political hack Rick Hillier and the most useless excuse this country has ever had for a defence minister, Gordon O'Connor.
 

The (Continuing) Audacity of O'Connor and Hillier

When it comes to transparency with this current department of defence, the only area where it truly fits that bill is in its exercise of political propagandizing.

Following last week's hullabaloo surrounding accusations that O'Connor had not, in fact, had his department pay for full funeral expenses for all soldiers - as he said he had on the record in the house (ie. he lied, again) - it seems that the Cons' political advisers have decided to try to divert attention away from that ugly mess by now proclaiming 2007 to be 'the Year of the Military Family'. What a slap in the face. Count on them to act like an abusive spouse who thinks they can make it all better if they just bring home a bouquet of flowers the next day. That's what they do. They're opportunists and manipulators.

And to kick it off, who else but O'Connor's military chief of defence staff turned political sockpuppet, Rick Hillier?

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says it's only fitting to celebrate the spouses, children and parents of people in uniform given the sacrifices that they make each day.

"They are the strength behind the uniform," Hillier said in a statement.

You just want to give Hillier the proverbial (and, of course, non-violent) smack upside the head, don't you?

As for the Dinning family, suddenly the money's on its way to cover their son's funeral costs (not that the public humiliation caused by this entire mess had anything to do with that development, of course):

On Thursday, the chief of military personnel phoned the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning to apologize a day after they held a press conference to plead their case.

Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile called the corporal's father, Lincoln Dinning, and promised to send a cheque to cover the difference between what the funeral cost and what the military paid, as well as to pay for outstanding grief counselling bills.

"He apologized profusely for the situation and said it got stuck in the system and it shouldn't have," Dinning told CTV's Question Period co-host Craig Oliver on Sunday.

"And, as they say, the cheque is in the mail."

Right. And if you buy that excuse you're either a) a Conservative b) living in denial or c) both (the most likely answer).
 

War Crimes Allegations Against Hillier & O'Connor

Via CTV:

Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Defence Minsiter [sic] Gordon O'Connor have both been named in a 14-page letter to the International Criminal Court by Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia and William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway.

The professors claim "possible war crimes" have been committed by Hillier and O'Connor, resulting from the prisoner transfer agreement between Canada and Afghanistan, and have asked the ICC to investigate.

More via the Globe and Mail:

The chief of Canadian defence has dismissed calls that he and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor be investigated for “possible war crimes” in light of revelations Afghan prisoners handed to the local authorities are being abused.

General Rick Hillier dismissed the letter, sent to the International Criminal Court, during an appearance on CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.

“First of all, much attention has been paid to what is a very, very small part of our mission,” Gen. Hillier said. “I concentrate on setting our young men and women up for success . . . on reducing the risk to them.

“So I just let the theatrics, if you will, of these kinds of things go on around me. I've got a job to do. I'm going to do that job.”

"Theatrics"...."a very, very small part of our mission".

Since when is protecting the rights of detainees, which is required under the Geneva Conventions, something to be minimized? Once again, Hillier's absolute arrogance is on display for all to see.

In March, Hillier said he had "no regrets" about the 2005 detainee agreement he signed with the Afghan government - an agreement we now know was so fundamentally flawed and inferior to those signed by other countries that it offered no protections to the detainees handed over to Afghan officials.

In fact, this story in the Globe and Mail earlier this week shows exactly why the continual trail of lies told by our so-called defence minister Gordon O'Connor is so damaging to all involved:

The Harper government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security forces faced the possibility of torture, abuse and extrajudicial killing, The Globe and Mail has learned.

But the government has eradicated every single reference to torture and abuse in prison from a heavily blacked-out version of a report prepared by Canadian diplomats in Kabul and released under an access to information request.

Initially, the government denied the existence of the report, responding in writing that "no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists." After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released a heavily edited version this week.

Among the sentences blacked out by the Foreign Affairs Department in the report's summary is "Extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common," according to full passages of the report obtained independently by The Globe.

The Foreign Affairs report, titled Afghanistan-2006; Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, was marked "CEO" for Canadian Eyes Only. It seems to remove any last vestige of doubt that the senior officials and ministers knew that torture and abuse were rife in Afghan jails.

On Wednesday, O'Connor insisted that Canada now has a new agreement with the Afghanistan government that would allow members of the RCMP and Corrections Canada to monitor detainee treatment in Afghanistan. During question period on Thursday however, Stephen Harper said "no formal agreement" has been signed yet.

First that was the ICRC's job. Then the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission was supposed to oversee their treatment. Now, it's the RCMP. Who's next?

Murky, shady, shifty and completely incompetent.

A very defensive Harper also tried his damn best during question period to accuse the opposition parties of disrespecting the troops by bringing up allegations of detainee abuse - a handy Bushco tactic. Don't like questions? Just attack the questioner's patriotism and insist they're attacking the troops. Don't like allegations? Claim they're false (repeatedly) even before they're investigated (and there are 4 investigations currently underway). Stockwell Day even had the nerve to repeat the Rumsfeld talking point that detainees are taught to lie about abuse. If that's what this tory government believes, why are they even investigating?

This should not be a partisan matter. If Canada's military is involved in possible war crimes, if detainees handed over by our soldiers are being abused, tortured or executed, if the Geneva Conventions have been violated, this government owes all Canadians a serious dose of humility - not defensiveness - and a promise to act on this country's behalf to resolve this situation as soon as possible while leaving no stone unturned in order to get to the truth. These tories seem to forget that they work for us and that their jobs require them to work for all of us and that means they need to get past playing politics - now - before more people suffer and die.

There are peoples' lives on the line here.

Both Hillier and O'Connor must be held to account. If this government won't do its job, perhaps a war crimes investigation at The Hague will, but we have to ask ourselves if that's what we've been reduced to - a country that refuses to take responsibility for its actions during a time of war.


Related: Irish Centre for Human Rights
Michael Byers, UBC (bio/contact info)
 

Afghanistan: Reality and Stoned Policemen

An anti-opium billboard in Kabul (photo credit: AFP)

I don't why the National Right-Wing Post editors let this depressing anti-Afghanistan war propaganda appear in their paper (maybe they're starved for readers?) but, nevertheless, here it is:

OTTAWA — Two leading experts on Afghanistan painted a sobering picture of the conditions there Thursday, arguing support among Afghans for NATO forces is plummeting, the U.S.-driven policy of poppy eradication is wrongheaded, and the war might not be winnable in its present form.

U.S. scholar Barnett Rubin and Gordon Smith, Canada's former ambassador to NATO, delivered their withering comments to a parliamentary committee only days after Canada's top military commander, Gen. Rick Hillier, touted the progress being made in Afghanistan.

Hillier, the chief of defence staff, this week predicted Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan should soon see a rise in attacks from the Taliban. But he insisted on using the term "surge" rather than "offensive."

surge, surge...hmmm..now where have I heard that before?

Rubin, who has been to Afghanistan 29 times and followed it for more than two decades, said Thursday that many Afghans are growing frustrated with the pace of Western efforts to stabilize the country.

"They're not at all happy. Support for both the international presence and the government has plummeted in the past year or so," he told the House of Commons foreign affairs committee.

He said Afghans aren't seeing the results of promises by the United States and NATO, which took over the mission in 2003, to increase security, establish democracy and improve the economy.

"The main complaint that I hear from Afghans is not that we're imposing something on them that we don't want, but that we haven't delivered what they think we promised."

Gee...that sounds familiar too...

Smith, meanwhile, threw cold water on Hillier's suggestion that Canadian troops are facing a weakened enemy.

There is evidence that al-Qaeda-affiliated militants, who often fight alongside the Taliban, are actually gaining strength, said Smith, now executive director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria.

"The al-Qaeda problem has not gone away," he told the committee. "It's important that we not forget the original motivation for going to Afghanistan, and that was to deal with al-Qaeda."

Smith recently released a critical report of his own, entitled "Canada in Afghanistan: Is it Working?" He questions whether NATO can achieve its stated goals, even within a period of 10 years. Canada has committed to maintain its military presence until 2009.

"If we're serious, and we've got to be serious, we'll be there for a long time," he said.

And the so-called "new" Conservative government has even budgeted for that possibility while trying to make everybody believe we're only in this until 2009.

And about that opium issue...:

MAIWAND, Afghanistan (AFP) - Colourful ribbons tied to their Kalashnikovs and opium flowers decorating a van, police in flip-flops meet with Canadian soldiers about a new anti-Taliban operation in southern Afghanistan.

Well, at least our troops were greeted with flowers.

The Canadians, part of a NATO-led force, had been on time for the rendezvous with the district police chief at a highway checkpost in Kanadahar province's Maiwand, known as a through route for Taliban and drugs traffickers.

Three scruffy policemen were on duty, lounging on wooden beds and watching the cars pass. "The boss is not here. He is in Kandahar. Didn't you know?" said one, Abdul Wassi, with a smile.

He was wearing a long traditional shirt because his uniform "is being washed."

Wassi put in a call to the deputy of the district, named Gulali.

The "commander" arrived in a whirl a few minutes later at the wheel of a van with opium flowers attached to the bumpers at the front and three teenagers on the back, green, blue and yellow ribbons attached to their guns.

"They have just come back from an operation to pull up opium poppy," Wassi explained.

Canadian officer Alex Ruff, nearly twice the size of Gulali, told the deputy the evening's operation was to disturb Taliban expected to move through the area to flee offensives in neighbouring Helmand province, further west.

"We are going to reinforce this post and I need all your men," he said to Gulali, whose eyes were lowered.

"We do not have enough vehicles," the Afghan replied, still not looking at the Canadian. "Do what you can," was the reply.

There are about 250 policemen in Maiwand, a Taliban stronghold. Among them are "auxiliary policemen" who are recruited by tribal chiefs and receive a gun and a uniform after two weeks' training.

The Canadians do not really expect this small post to do much to stop the Taliban. "Two or three guys in a hut, armed with rifles, could not do much if they were attacked. They could not even stop a vehicle," said one soldier.

Wassi said he searches two or three vehicles a night and about 10 in the day.

"I am not afraid even though the Taliban captured and decapitated four policemen from this post a few months back," he said.

Night fell and Canadian armoured vehicles discreetly took positions around the post, ready to intervene should anything happen.

"There will be no clashes. The Taliban know you are here," one Afghan policeman said.

In the meantime, about 20 policemen had blocked the road for a few hours, "high after smoking opium and searching everything that moves," a Canadian soldier said.

There was no incident apart from some trucks turning back after seeing the roadblock.

Ruff, the Canadian officer, said he does not have much confidence in the police in a district where the governor himself is suspected of being involved in the trafficking of opium, of which Afghanistan is the world's top producer.

Poppy-induced freedom is definitely on the march.

Yes, DynCorp has sure done a heckuva job in Afghanistan of (not) training the police there. Give that company the Medal of Freedom!
 

O'Connor Apologizes: Too little, too late

Gordon O'Connor recently got his lying ass handed to him on a plate when it was revealed that he had misled parliament about the role the ICRC supposedly had in overseeing the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan from our troops to Afghan officials - a practice that has resulted in allegations from at least 18 men that they were abused at the hands of those officials.

O'Connor was forced to apologize and did so in the house today.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," O'Connor said Monday in Parliament. "I take full responsibility and do so without hesitations."

"The International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainess transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities."

O'Connor also tabled letters to correct information he and other DND officials provided to the House of Commons.

In a report by The Globe and Mail earlier this month, the ICRC denied O'Connor's initial claims saying they were not responsible for monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement.

The report contradicted numerous statements by O'Connor including one he made to the House on May 31, 2006:

"The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

As late at March 4, 2007, O'Connor told CTV's Question Period that DND was "reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor" the treatment of detainees.

He said his previous statements had been "inadvertent" and that they were made "in good faith". In other words, he had absolutely no idea what the non-binding farce of an agreement General Hillier had signed with the Afghan government in December, 2005 even consisted of. Further, as a former military man, O'Connor should have known exactly what the ICRC does and does not do regarding the handling of detainee matters.

He's incompetent and should be fired. Period.

Update: O'Connor is under fire in question period from all of the opposition parties over these detainee issues. His standard response is that "there are 4 investigations" underway which, of course, led to even more questions about his department's attempts to challenge the jurisdiction of the Military Complaints Commission just last week. He's apparently backing down from that threat now. O'Connor was also asked about the fate of the 3 missing detainees, of whom he said previously:

"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.

That statement implied he might actually know where they were. Obviously, he has no idea what's happened to them.

Here's why all of this is such a huge issue. Last fall, Human Rights Watch issued a letter to NATO about the conditions detainees are held under in Afghanistan:

US forces in Afghanistan have arbitrarily detained civilians, used excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreated detainees. This behavior led to widespread anger among Afghans and elicited official complaints from President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials. It is important for NATO forces to establish a uniform set of lawful and transparent procedures for handling Afghans detained in the course of military operations.

Recognizing that US forces did not comply with the legal standards applicable to their operations in Afghanistan, several NATO countries have signed bilateral agreements with the Afghan Ministry of Defense regulating the transfer of detainees from NATO forces to Afghan authorities. While the agreements differ in some details, they share many common features, such as an agreement that NATO forces will release detainees or transfer them to Afghan custody within 96 hours, and that NATO and Afghan authorities will treat detainees in accordance with international law. The agreements further stipulate that Afghan authorities will not try, release, or transfer detainees to a third country without the explicit agreement of NATO forces (presumably to avoid transfer of detainees to US custody or other jurisdictions where detainees may be subject to mistreatment). Under the agreements seen by Human Rights Watch, NATO forces, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, will have access to detainees even after they have been transferred to Afghan custody. [ed. That obviously is not the case with Canada's agreement with the ICRC.]

Afghan detainees receive greater protection under these agreements than they receive from the US military, but we are concerned that detainees remain at risk of abuse unless NATO improves the terms and implementation of its policies toward detainees in Afghanistan.

NATO forces have stated that they have detained only a few detainees, even in the heavy combat zones of southern Afghanistan. Dutch forces operating in Oruzgan announced their first five detainees two weeks ago, while British and Canadian forces operating in Helmand and Kandahar, respectively, have publicly acknowledged fewer than 100 detainees. Given the ferocity of the fighting in these areas, the absence of more detainees raises two alarming alternatives: either that NATO forces are not taking detainees, or, more likely, that NATO forces are circumventing their bilateral agreements by immediately turning over detainees to Afghan authorities and thus abrogating their responsibility to monitor the detainees’ treatment.

We have received credible reports about mistreatment of detainees transferred by NATO to Afghan authorities. It is our understanding that the Afghan Ministry of Defense does not have in place a legal framework for holding detainees. We understand that the Afghan government has not yet ratified a law on military tribunals drafted with the assistance of US authorities. For now, we understand that in practice most NATO detainees are transferred to the National Directorate of Security (NDS), an opaque, unaccountable and abusive institution still governed by classified laws promulgated during Afghanistan’s communist era. The NDS operates detention centers that fail to meet international standards for the treatment of detainees.

Although the NDS has made efforts to disassociate itself from its predecessor KHAD, which was notorious for torture, Human Rights Watch has received credible reports of detainees being mistreated by the NDS; in some cases the treatment amounted to torture. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch has recently learned that on at least one occasion the NDS hid a detainee who had been handed over by NATO from the ICRC.

Human Rights Watch urges NATO to formulate and articulate a common policy that requires NATO members to be involved at all stages of the detention process. NATO should ensure that the ICRC, United Nations, and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission have access to all detention centers where NATO detainees are held to monitor prison conditions and investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. Finally, NATO and the Afghan Government should publicize the names of detainees and the date and location of their arrest as well the name of the detainee’s father, birthplace, and current village or town. [ed. That is not included in Canada's agreement with the AIHRC.]

Even though O'Connor continually told the house on Monday that he has complete confidence in the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission and that he'll wait for the results of the 4 investigations now underway in Canada, it seems the head of that commission has already passed judgement on the situation:

The leader of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission suggests it's a difficult job to monitor the treatment of Taliban prisoners.

Abdul Noorzai says the commission only has 48 staff in the Kandahar region, and eight of those are directly involved in reviewing complaints or visiting prisons.

The Human Rights Commission for the Kandahar region signed an agreement with Canada last month to monitor and report on any abuse of detainees.

Noorzai acknowledges abuse and even torture of prison inmates is an ongoing problem in Afghan prisons.

But he told The Canadian Press he has no evidence that any Taliban suspects handed over to the Afghan government by Canadian troops have ever been abused.

How can he possibly state that when the agreement signed with his organization to oversee detainee treatment only came into force this month? Are we really expected to believe that those 8 staff members have done a thorough investigation of all of the compliants?

There is something seriously wrong with all of this and O'Connor is not to be trusted to sort it all out.
 

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.
 

Do you have questions for Rick Hillier?

I know I do. But I suppose asking him why he is such an arrogant flipping blowhard won't get a response.

The Globe and Mail is hosting a Q & A session with Hillier on Thursday. You can submit your questions now.

I wonder if they'll allow this one: when are you going to resign?
 

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
 

O'Connor's Damage Control Trip to Afghanistan

Defence minister Gordon O'Connor is in trouble - and he knows it. O'Connor made a surprise trip to Afghanistan this weekend to meet with members of that country's human rights commission.

The Canadian military recently and secretly signed an agreement with that body to get it involved with overseeing the transfer of detainees handed over by its troops to Afghan authories. That news came out following the revelations of alleged abuse of 3 Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers (for which there are now 4 investigations underway) who have since disappeared. Handy timing. O'Connor claimed that the defence department had been working on that agreement since last summer but didn't explain why it would take such a long time for such a pact to be enacted (if his claim is even true).

O'Connor is rightly under fire for lying about the defence department's agreement with the ICRC. He claimed they were responsible for monitoring the detainees after they were turned over. An ICRC official denied that claim, obviously leaving O'Connor in the hot seat.

So, now O'Connor has made a hasty trip to Afghanistan for a photo op to make it look like he's actually on top of things. He's not. And he's as transparently arrogant as they come.

Via The Toronto Star:

O'Connor said that during his surprise visit he wants to go over the terms of the agreement to ensure it works.

"In addition to talking with the human rights organization here, I am also going to go through the entire process here on the ground. The staff are going to explain to me the entire process – how it happens."

Now, why would our defence minister need to waste taxpayers' money by going to Afghanistan to find out what's going on? Wasn't he briefed about this agreement and the processes involved in transfering detainees by General Hillier, whose hand has been in all of this - beginning with his signing of the ICRC agreement back in December, 2005?

Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission is investing allegations that on 18 occasions troops handed over prisoners knowing they would be abused.

That's why O'Connor is in Afghanistan today - to make it look like 1) he actually knows what he's doing and 2) to cover his ass because he's failed. Canada doesn't need its version of Donald Rumsfeld who was never held accountable for anything. O'Connor should be fired.
 

3 Afghanistan Detainees Have Disappeared

General Rick Hillier should be relieved of his command and defence minister O'Connor should be fired.

WASHINGTON — The three detainees at the heart of multiple probes into allegations of abuse by Canadian soldiers have disappeared while in Afghan custody, a seemingly grave breach of the Canada-Afghan pact on detainee treatment, The Globe and Mail has learned.

That poses significant challenges for the criminal probe and raises new doubts about government assurances that all detainees are properly treated and accounted for.
[...]
The December, 2005 deal signed by General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, stipulates that detainees won't face capital punishment after Canadian troops hand them over to Afghan authorities. Among other things, it requires that “accurate written records accounting for all detainees” be kept by both Canada and Afghanistan.

“Nothing in the agreement prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners so there is no need to make any change in the agreement,” Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said last spring when it was being compared to the Dutch model.

Mr. O'Connor has said repeatedly that a provision in the agreement makes the International Committee of the Red Cross responsible for ensuring that detainees are humanely treated and properly accounted for. “If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action,” the minister said.

Yet nothing in the actual agreement seems to oblige the ICRC to report back to Canada, even if ICRC monitors were aware that detainees were going missing — or worse — in Afghan hands.

Possible explanations for their disappearance run the gamut from inept prison record-keeping by Afghan guards to undocumented release — commonplace in Afghanistan and often accompanied by payment of bribes — to torture or even killing, a fate repeatedly documented by numerous human-rights groups.

As I wrote here on Thursday, the fact that Hillier signed the original agreement with the Afghan government was highly unusual. On top of that, it isn't legally binding and was followed up only this past week by another agreement signed in secret with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to provide more oversight for detainees who are transferred into the hands of the Afghans.

What will happen now to the 4 probes into the treatment of these disappeared detainees?

O'Connor has lied about this entire affair and Hillier took duties upon himself that he shouldn't have had and look where we are now. Hillier has been whining about how insulted he is about being called a political prop. Well, in this instance, he certainly made himself one (again) by signing an agreement with the Afghan government that should have been handled by foreign affairs or at least the ministry of defence.

He and O'Connor are responsible for the fate of these detainees because they refused to have an agreement in place to fully protect their rights. It's too late now to feign concern or remorse. They need to be held accountable.

Nor is it clear whether Mr. O'Conner [sic] was ever told by the ICRC that it couldn't account for detainees turned over to Afghan police. Last month he told the Commons, “I can assure this House that at no time was I aware of any abuse of prisoners.”
[...]
...all of the probes — including the NIS criminal investigation and the board of inquiry ordered by Gen. Hillier to examine detainee handling — were launched after The Globe published the allegations of abuse. Prior to that, Canadian Forces spokespeople had insisted that “appropriate force” was used on the detainees and no investigations were needed.

O'Connor didn't know about the abuse? Bull. The buck stops with him. And Hillier. They'd better hope those detainees are still alive.

Canadian Military Secretly Signs Agreement with Afghan Human Rights Watchdog

I find it quite bizarre that, after so much concern was recently expressed over the Canadian military's practice of handing over detainees in Afghanistan without any appropriate follow up, the most recent news on this file is that a secret agreement between "military commanders" and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has been signed to oversee the treatment of those detainees.

I suspect, as would most, that those "military commanders" include General Rick Hillier who for some unknown reason also signed the original, legally ineffective agreement regarding those detainess back in 2005. Why are members of the military involved in handling these agreements when it would seem obvious that such matters should be handled by the foreign affairs ministry? Further, why was this recent agreement signed in secret? You'd think that the military would have made this public since it's been under fire about its lax policies in this area.

There are now 4 probes into abuse alleged to have to been suffered by Afghan detainees at the hands of the Canadian military.

The Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission has launched an investigation into whether soldiers knew about alleged evidence that detainees would be tortured if they were handed over to Afghan authorities.
[...]
The latest investigation stems from a joint Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association complaint. It alleges the Canadian Forces military police on at least 18 occasions transferred detainees to Afghan authorities notwithstanding alleged evidence that there was a likelihood they would be tortured.

"They are alleging the military police knew or ought to have known that the prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities would be tortured and therefore acted improperly in doing so, so that will be our focus," said Stanley Blythe, the chief of staff of the commission.

Peter Tinsley, chairman of the commission, has not decided whether to hold public hearings — something that could force high-ranking officers to defend the practice.

Tinsley has a checkered past when it comes to investigations and, as Esprit de Corps magazine pointed out upon his current appointment to the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission, Tinsley should be pushed to hold a public inquiry on these concerns in Afghanistan considering his background:

As of Dec. 12, Peter Tinsley will be the new chairman of the Military Police Complaints Commission. Keen-eyed military followers may recall that Tinsley was the prosecutor in the court martial of Trooper Kyle Brown, one of those accused and convicted in the beating death of a Somali. The blatant injustice meted out in those legal proceedings was well-documented in a national best-seller by Peter Worthington titled Scapegoat.

During the dark days of the public inquiry that followed, Tinsley held the job of "special adviser" to the Judge Advocate General. In other words, no one is more a symbol of the military justice system indicted by that 1997 Somalia inquiry’s report than ex-colonel Peter Tinsley.

Using the old adage "If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em," it would appear that the inmates have once again seized control of their own asylum.

Even though Defence Minister O'Connor dismissed concerns that what has allegedly happened to those detainees in Afghanistan doesn't rise to the level of the Somalia affair, he'd be wise to learn from past mistakes in order to be as transparent as possible when it comes to handling these new concerns. Then again, O'Connor's defence department knew about these allegations in Afghanistan months before they were brought to the public's attention and did nothing. Perhaps he's more inclined to continue with the secrecy surrounding all of this regardless.
 

Hillier is Insulted

"I've been shot at. People have attempted to blow me up. I had a suicide bomber targeted against me when I was the commander in Afghanistan. And I've been called every name in the book, I'm certain," Hillier said. "I don't think I've ever been so insulted as to be called a prop for a political party."
link

Well, maybe if Hillier didn't act like one, he wouldn't be so defensive. I'll leave it to other real and armchair psychologists to analyze the fact that Hillier felt it was more insulting to be called a "political prop" than to have people actually try to kill him.

Jim Reed recently had more than a few words of wisdom for Hillier on that score. Dave at The Galloping Beaver saw Hillier's behaviour from a different perspective while a Toronto Star editorial blasted Hillier for endorsing the "mission creep" in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt, however, that the realities of having to deal with a more combat-oriented role in Afghanistan has turned Hillier into a bitter and embattled leader of the CAF - a role he pushed for. Railing against the past is not the way to solve or change anything. There's a "new" government in charge now - the government that changed the purpose of the mission without any kind of game plan. If Hillier has complaints, they should be squarely aimed at the Conservative regime that now controls the funding and he also needs to re-examine his role in how the Canadian military has arrived at this point in a war that has no end in sight.

Hillier photo credit: CP