kEiThZ
Superstar
We'd just rather not waste our time with trolls. You want serious discussion, we're up for that.
|
|
|
Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)
- Thread starter jade_lee
- Start date
We'd just rather not waste our time with trolls. You want serious discussion, we're up for that.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Agreed. Unfortunately for them, the military staff is refusing to wear this one. That's why the politicians are squirming.
I don't understand why they just don't come clean. Lay it all out on the table. Most of the rules of engagment and prisoner exchange stuff was from the Martin era anyway. The Conservatives can be blamed for not being diligent. They can't, however, be blamed for the failure of previous governments to put proper agreements in place.
As someone who's seen the Colvin grams, I would suggest caution in taking everything he said at face value. A parliamentary committee is a priviliged platform. If they had a judicial inquiry with higher burdens of proof for some of his accusations, he'd be shot down pretty quickly. Saying stuff like every prisoner we arrested was tortured or that most of them were Afghans farmers is simply wrong by common sense.
Last edited:
jade_lee
Active Member
This matter is not going away. Prisoner transfer by our military to jails known to torture people is serious stuff and the generals also have some explaining to do.
jade_lee
Active Member
OTTAWA -- Civil liberties lawyer Paul Champ on Tuesday accused retired general Rick Hillier of trivializing torture when the country's former top soldier compared Afghan detainees to inmates at Ontario's Millhaven penitentiary during testimony last month to a House of Commons committee.
Mr. Champ, representing Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and retired diplomat Gar Pardy, former head of consular affairs, testified at an informal hearing of the committee looking into allegations that
senior government and military officials turned a blind eye to a risk of torture of detainees transferred into Afghan custody by Canadian military forces in 2006-07.
Conservative government MPs boycotted the committee for the second week in a row.
"I don't think there's any example of a prisoner in a Canadian facility having their toe nails pulled out or being subjected to electric shocks," Mr. Champ said during questioning by Toronto MP Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic. Mr. Rae said Mr. Hillier had -- at the committee and on other occasions -- expressed skepticism about Taliban claims of torture by suggesting prisoners in Canada would also claim mistreatment if given a chance.
"In my view, it's an absurd statement to make and it's a trivialization of what's happening in Afghanistan and the absolutely terrible conditions in Afghan prisons," Mr. Champ said. "It's not being frustrated with a prisoner and you hit him with a truncheon or something like that.... This is planned, systemic torture. And to compare it to a Canadian prison, I would suggest, is indicating someone is not taking this matter very seriously at all."
Mr. Champ also questioned how Mr. Hillier, a former chief of defence staff, could not have concluded, given reports from Foreign Affairs and from international organizations, "that there's probably a solid risk of torture if we hand over these individuals to these authorities who have committed these kinds of abuses in the past."
Mr. Pardy testified that Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin provided the government with information essential while the country is at war and that his reports would have been seen at the upper echelons. The way the government has treated Mr. Colvin since his testimony was made public throws "a very large bucket of cold water" on other public servants, Mr. Pardy said.
At a Nov. 25 committee hearing, Mr. Hillier said he saw nothing in reports he received to justify concern about torture.
Comparing Afghanistan to Canada, he said: "So, even in a perfectly functioning society like our great country, if you walk into Millhaven penitentiary and you ask half the inmates there whether anybody's abused them, they'll probably all say yes, because that is the nature of the beast. So there is always a risk that something can occur, and are you comfortable that there is a follow up process that would recognize that. That was the key."
from the National Post
Mr. Champ, representing Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and retired diplomat Gar Pardy, former head of consular affairs, testified at an informal hearing of the committee looking into allegations that
senior government and military officials turned a blind eye to a risk of torture of detainees transferred into Afghan custody by Canadian military forces in 2006-07.
Conservative government MPs boycotted the committee for the second week in a row.
"I don't think there's any example of a prisoner in a Canadian facility having their toe nails pulled out or being subjected to electric shocks," Mr. Champ said during questioning by Toronto MP Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic. Mr. Rae said Mr. Hillier had -- at the committee and on other occasions -- expressed skepticism about Taliban claims of torture by suggesting prisoners in Canada would also claim mistreatment if given a chance.
"In my view, it's an absurd statement to make and it's a trivialization of what's happening in Afghanistan and the absolutely terrible conditions in Afghan prisons," Mr. Champ said. "It's not being frustrated with a prisoner and you hit him with a truncheon or something like that.... This is planned, systemic torture. And to compare it to a Canadian prison, I would suggest, is indicating someone is not taking this matter very seriously at all."
Mr. Champ also questioned how Mr. Hillier, a former chief of defence staff, could not have concluded, given reports from Foreign Affairs and from international organizations, "that there's probably a solid risk of torture if we hand over these individuals to these authorities who have committed these kinds of abuses in the past."
Mr. Pardy testified that Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin provided the government with information essential while the country is at war and that his reports would have been seen at the upper echelons. The way the government has treated Mr. Colvin since his testimony was made public throws "a very large bucket of cold water" on other public servants, Mr. Pardy said.
At a Nov. 25 committee hearing, Mr. Hillier said he saw nothing in reports he received to justify concern about torture.
Comparing Afghanistan to Canada, he said: "So, even in a perfectly functioning society like our great country, if you walk into Millhaven penitentiary and you ask half the inmates there whether anybody's abused them, they'll probably all say yes, because that is the nature of the beast. So there is always a risk that something can occur, and are you comfortable that there is a follow up process that would recognize that. That was the key."
from the National Post
jade_lee
Active Member
Our PM Harper said that we Canadians don't really care about the Afghan detainee matter...... he is wrong.
jade_lee
Active Member
Do you really think your opinion matters that much? Keep on protecting the likes of Hillier because me thinks he still has some serious dirty laundry to air.
LAz
Active Member
If Canadians gave a damn about what is going on, then we would not even be there in first place. Perhaps not even in NATO.
jade_lee
Active Member
I agree.
But we are there and we might not have done what is expected of us with respect to prisoner transfers.
Could Canadians be charged with war crimes?
If public inquiry not called, Canadians may be charged at International Criminal Court
By Jeff Davis, Embassy
Published December 16, 2009
With the government refusing to start a public inquiry and the International Criminal Court having launched a "preliminary" investigation into the Afghan detainee issue, law experts say there is a very real chance Canadian officials could be charged with war crimes.
Until last week, the government and senior officials had been saying they had no credible reports that people detained by the Canadian Forces and transferred to Afghan authorities were being tortured.
While Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk revealed on Dec. 9 that such torture had, in fact, occurred in the past, government ministers say they were not aware of the reports. Further, they have not acknowledged they heard the widespread reports that Afghan authorities were abusing detainees.
Last week's charged Commons' Afghanistan Committee meeting saw Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon and former defence minister Gordon O'Connor testify on the issue. During the meeting, Liberal Defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh noted that in international law, the legal threshold for the war crime of transferring into torture hangs on circumstantial evidence.
"International law is very clear," said Mr. Dosanjh, a lawyer and former attorney general of British Columbia. "You need circumstantial evidence; you don't need actual knowledge of any specific allegations, or actual knowledge of torture. There was substantial knowledge of torture in Afghan jails. Every kid on the ground knew that. All of the reports, national or international, knew that."
University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes says Mr. Dosanjh was correct. The government's oft-repeated line that there was no documented physical evidence of torture of Canadian-transferred detainees is a "detour," he said, which ignores the actual requirements of the law: circumstantial evidence that a risk of torture existed.
Having ratified the Geneva Convention, Canada incorporated its principles into domestic law through the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Under this domestic law, Mr. Mendes said, the RCMP could investigate government officials.
Mr. Mendes said that for the "honour and dignity of Canada," the government should call a public inquiry. Once the facts are out in public, he said, the RCMP could decide whether to charge officials, or whether the political consequences—for example, if a minister were to resign—were sufficient.
He added that jurisprudence holds that the responsibility for such transfers rests with those who authorized the transfer.
"While the front line soldiers may have done the actual transfer, the culpability actually lies at the civilian command level: The ones who set the framework in place," Mr. Mendes said.
However, if the government's refusal to launch a Canadian investigation continues, he said, that could open it up to international judicial systems.
The International Criminal Court considers itself a court of last resort, abiding the principle of "complemenarity." This means the ICC can only exercise its jurisdiction where the home country of the suspect in question is unable or unwilling to prosecute.
The ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into human rights abuses committed in Afghanistan by Taliban and ISAF forces alike.
And while the ICC has focused in recent years on prosecuting African despots, Mr. Ocampo said in a November interview with the Wall Street Journal that he will not back down from prosecuting Western governments that are not holding their officials accountable for their actions.
"I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate. If they don't, I shall investigate," Mr. Ocampo said. "That's the rule and we have one rule for everyone."
Earlier this month, Mr. Ocampo received an update on Canada's detainee debate from Michael Byers, who teaches international law and the laws of war at the University of British Columbia, and who has run for the federal NDP. The 16-page letter, written with the director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, William Schabas, seeks to draw attention to Richard Colvin's testimony.
Due to the failure of Canadian officials to impose a rigorous transfer agreement, Mr. Byers writes, officials "seem to have wilfully been placing detainees at well-documented risk of torture, cruel treatment and outrages upon personal dignity. If so, they would appear to have been committing war crimes...in circumstances that clearly fall within the Court's jurisdiction."
This is not Mr. Byers' first foray into the detainee issue. In December 2006, Mr. Byers and Amnesty International Canada secretary-general Alex Neve appeared before the Commons' Defence Committee, testifying that Canada's detainee transfer agreement was insufficient and left the Canadian-transferred prisoners exposed to abuse.
The two said that if the government simply adopted a transfer agreement similar to that of the Dutch government, a potential scandal could be avoided.
"There are substantial grounds to believe that when Canadian Forces transfer a prisoner into Afghan custody, torture or ill treatment will occur," Mr. Neve told the committee. "In doing so, Canada is in violation of its international human rights obligations."
"So where do we go from here? That's the big question," Mr. Byers told the committee. "The Canada-Afghanistan arrangement should be renegotiated to include all the protections provided in the Netherlands-Afghanistan memorandum."
The government ignored this advice, until May 2007. Mr. Byers said that due to reports from the US government, former UN high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour and Richard Colvin, the government had a "general knowledge" of the risks of transferring detainees to Afghan authorities. These reports, he said, "should have set off very loud alarm bells in Ottawa."
Mr. Byers said Canadian officials who oversaw the issue between December 2005—when the original agreement was signed—and May 2007—when a new one came into force—are open to prosecution because they didn't act.
"For a significant period of time, [officials] knew there was a substantial risk of torture, they knew how to prevent it, and they chose for a substantial period of time not to take preventative measures."
He said that this case is particularly serious because, rather than torture being abetted by a low-ranking soldier acting alone, complicity appears to go "all the way up the chain of command up to the defence minister and foreign minister."
"That's what distinguishes this from standard war crimes cases," Mr. Byers said. "They've got the command responsibility, and that's why I believe the ICC prosecutor will initiate a formal investigation."
Mr. Byers speculated that Canadian officials are more likely to be investigated than American ones because Canada has ratified the ICC's Rome Statutes and the United States has not.
"Here you have clear jurisdiction, a history of strong support for the court, and allegations of a governmental policy that goes up and down the chain of command, all the way to Cabinet ministers," he said. "You couldn't imagine a more compelling situation for the prosecutor.
"I know that it is difficult for Canadians to conceive of this possibility," Mr. Byers concluded. "But it's a very real possibility."
Fearful of the damage an ICC investigation would inflict on Canada's international reputation, Mr. Byers said he hopes the Harper government will launch a public inquiry. Such action, he said, may satisfy the ICC's principle of "complemenarity" and could stop any ICC legal action in its tracks.
"We could completely close off the possibility [of Canadians being charged at the ICC] by engaging in domestic procedures," he said.
jdavis@embassymag.ca
Last edited:
jade_lee
Active Member
U.N. reports today that the civilian death toll in Afghanistan is up by 14%.
jade_lee
Active Member
NATO is talking to the Taliban. Everything old is new again.
Tewder
Senior Member
So are you for the Taliban or against them? Refresh our memory.
jade_lee
Active Member
I am against the Harper/NATO/ shameful war in Afghanistan starting in 2006 when the current government ramped up the killing mission. I commented on the scumbag remark early on in the thread and I still don't know who the real scumbags are. Your question suggests you're rather black and white. I bet you are all about the rights of women over there .....
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2480916&p=1
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2480916&p=1
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
A recent Conrad Black editorial on Af'stan:
Stick around
Stephen Harper's government should explain to Canadians why we must stay in Afghanistan
Conrad Black, National Post
After Barack Obama made his recent policy statement about the war in Afghanistan, I wrote here that the combination of the U.S. buildup, confirmation of war aims, and the major offensive by Pakistan, after years of shilly-shallying by that country, would produce an important victory over the region's terrorists.
Unfortunately, the current position of the Harper government is not so praiseworthy as Mr. Obama's. "We've done enough" is not an acceptable, or even honourable, revised mission statement at this stage in a just war that has both NATO and UN legitimization.
The Bush-Rumsfeld approach to waging war generally ignored foreign assistance, except for the British and Australians in Iraq. The Bush White House was concerned that any effort to build NATO solidarity would restrain the scope and force of the U.S. war on terror. There was some basis to the concern. But in regard to Afghanistan, this was no way to lead an alliance that had just rallied with sincere and affecting solidarity to America's side following the attacks of 9/11.
After failing to follow up aggressively on their initial success in Afghanistan, and moving the Pentagon's primary focus to Iraq, the Americans left their allies milling about in central Asia with inadequate forces (though the United States continued to field, by far, the largest national contingent). The Taliban began to recover. It was at this point that Canada, as one of the larger force contributors and bearers of casualties, should have co-ordinated with the other countries, agitated constructively and forcefully, and told the United States that if it didn't produce a credible war plan and an appropriate U.S. force level to achieve it, we were all pulling out.
Instead, we plodded imperceptibly on in the Mission Unaccomplishable of holding Kandahar province (one million people), the Taliban's heartland, including Kandahar City with 500,000 people, with only about 2,500 troops, and rarely more than 400 trigger-pullers in operation at a time, and for many months without helicopters. By comparison to this, even Horatius at the Bridge, Dollard facing the Indians, and the defenders of the Alamo all could be said to have had superfluous manpower.
Now, after many mistakes, the United States is executing an apparently successful plan to secure and depart Iraq, and has accorded Afghanistan 30,000 more first-class soldiers, under the leadership of a respected and successful allied force commander, General Stanley McChrystal. Across the border in Pakistan, meanwhile, a combination of Taliban outrages, U.S. diplomacy and assistance, and an apparently substantial move toward Pakistani military resolve, has transformed that country into a more willing and effective ally.
A recent poll by the BBC, ABC, and the German network ARD has revealed a sharp rise in Afghan support for the U.S.-NATO force presence (to 70%), and support for the present Afghan government, as opposed to the Taliban, of 90% to 6%. NATO is not an occupier, and the Taliban does not have a fraction of the popular support necessary for a truly successful insurgency, once the Afghan government forces are adequately large, armed and trained.
Instead of padding around indecisively and furtively, bending to the pacifistic posturing of the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, Canada's government must lead domestic opinion to a new Afghan policy based on the following points.
Canada should remain at present strength in Afghanistan until President Obama's proposed initiation of de-escalation in 18 months. Following that period, we would then determine our future policy, independently of the United States, but simultaneously. This commitment should be conditional on continuing to receive adequate support from the three crack U.S. Stryker battalions that have been placed under Canadian command at Kandahar.
The question of detainees is a sideshow. The Allies should develop a common policy about when to hand over detainees to the Afghan government, and what treatment of those detainees will be expected of the Afghans -- a more universal implementation of the sort of policy that the Canadians already have in place, in other words.
The Harper government should aggressively repeat the rationale for the Afghan intervention originally advanced by the Chretien government: that terrorism is a threat to all civilized countries, that Canada pledged to do its part, that NATO is the most successful alliance in history and the cornerstone of the security of all its members (except the United States, which provides most of the security), that this is a just and necessary war for the reasons that President Obama and other allied leaders (as well as three successive Canadian prime ministers of both major parties) have articulated, and that premature withdrawal would confirm the Bin Laden charge that the West is decadent and cowardly.
Finally, Harper should acknowledge that it would a fraud to leave, as is currently contemplated, fewer than 1,000 "non-combat" Canadians in the country: They would be nothing but sitting ducks.
Canada's foreign policy establishment must stop moping about Pearsonian peacekeeping and "punching above our weight." Peacekeeping doesn't work when there is war, and isn't usually necessary when there isn't.
Canada should recognize that it is one of the 12 or 14 most important countries of the 193 in the world, and bulk up its weight accordingly and, to apply that cliched metaphor, punch that weight. We can't wallow in nostalgia about peacekeeping and grumble about being under-recognized when we hide our light under a bushel, and announce we are pulling out of an eight-year commitment now that we are on the verge of participating in a much-desired and very necessary victory.
In geopolitics, flyweights aren't heavyweights. There is no international free lunch. And being served one is an ignoble ambition for such a distinguished country as ours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I am not a particular fan of Black as a person, and I don't entirely agree with his rationale here, I do agree with the conclusion that Canada and its NATO allies have an interest in helping Afghanistan become a more normal and self-sustaining state, as well as a moral duty to do so. Afghanis overwhelmingly want us there, and don't want us to allow their (albeit flawed) government to collapse into anarchy allowing the Taliban to retake the country. I don't know what more the left wants. I agree that our strategy has been flawed in ways, but just because we are incapable of perfection is no excuse not to try.
Stick around
Stephen Harper's government should explain to Canadians why we must stay in Afghanistan
Conrad Black, National Post
After Barack Obama made his recent policy statement about the war in Afghanistan, I wrote here that the combination of the U.S. buildup, confirmation of war aims, and the major offensive by Pakistan, after years of shilly-shallying by that country, would produce an important victory over the region's terrorists.
Unfortunately, the current position of the Harper government is not so praiseworthy as Mr. Obama's. "We've done enough" is not an acceptable, or even honourable, revised mission statement at this stage in a just war that has both NATO and UN legitimization.
The Bush-Rumsfeld approach to waging war generally ignored foreign assistance, except for the British and Australians in Iraq. The Bush White House was concerned that any effort to build NATO solidarity would restrain the scope and force of the U.S. war on terror. There was some basis to the concern. But in regard to Afghanistan, this was no way to lead an alliance that had just rallied with sincere and affecting solidarity to America's side following the attacks of 9/11.
After failing to follow up aggressively on their initial success in Afghanistan, and moving the Pentagon's primary focus to Iraq, the Americans left their allies milling about in central Asia with inadequate forces (though the United States continued to field, by far, the largest national contingent). The Taliban began to recover. It was at this point that Canada, as one of the larger force contributors and bearers of casualties, should have co-ordinated with the other countries, agitated constructively and forcefully, and told the United States that if it didn't produce a credible war plan and an appropriate U.S. force level to achieve it, we were all pulling out.
Instead, we plodded imperceptibly on in the Mission Unaccomplishable of holding Kandahar province (one million people), the Taliban's heartland, including Kandahar City with 500,000 people, with only about 2,500 troops, and rarely more than 400 trigger-pullers in operation at a time, and for many months without helicopters. By comparison to this, even Horatius at the Bridge, Dollard facing the Indians, and the defenders of the Alamo all could be said to have had superfluous manpower.
Now, after many mistakes, the United States is executing an apparently successful plan to secure and depart Iraq, and has accorded Afghanistan 30,000 more first-class soldiers, under the leadership of a respected and successful allied force commander, General Stanley McChrystal. Across the border in Pakistan, meanwhile, a combination of Taliban outrages, U.S. diplomacy and assistance, and an apparently substantial move toward Pakistani military resolve, has transformed that country into a more willing and effective ally.
A recent poll by the BBC, ABC, and the German network ARD has revealed a sharp rise in Afghan support for the U.S.-NATO force presence (to 70%), and support for the present Afghan government, as opposed to the Taliban, of 90% to 6%. NATO is not an occupier, and the Taliban does not have a fraction of the popular support necessary for a truly successful insurgency, once the Afghan government forces are adequately large, armed and trained.
Instead of padding around indecisively and furtively, bending to the pacifistic posturing of the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, Canada's government must lead domestic opinion to a new Afghan policy based on the following points.
Canada should remain at present strength in Afghanistan until President Obama's proposed initiation of de-escalation in 18 months. Following that period, we would then determine our future policy, independently of the United States, but simultaneously. This commitment should be conditional on continuing to receive adequate support from the three crack U.S. Stryker battalions that have been placed under Canadian command at Kandahar.
The question of detainees is a sideshow. The Allies should develop a common policy about when to hand over detainees to the Afghan government, and what treatment of those detainees will be expected of the Afghans -- a more universal implementation of the sort of policy that the Canadians already have in place, in other words.
The Harper government should aggressively repeat the rationale for the Afghan intervention originally advanced by the Chretien government: that terrorism is a threat to all civilized countries, that Canada pledged to do its part, that NATO is the most successful alliance in history and the cornerstone of the security of all its members (except the United States, which provides most of the security), that this is a just and necessary war for the reasons that President Obama and other allied leaders (as well as three successive Canadian prime ministers of both major parties) have articulated, and that premature withdrawal would confirm the Bin Laden charge that the West is decadent and cowardly.
Finally, Harper should acknowledge that it would a fraud to leave, as is currently contemplated, fewer than 1,000 "non-combat" Canadians in the country: They would be nothing but sitting ducks.
Canada's foreign policy establishment must stop moping about Pearsonian peacekeeping and "punching above our weight." Peacekeeping doesn't work when there is war, and isn't usually necessary when there isn't.
Canada should recognize that it is one of the 12 or 14 most important countries of the 193 in the world, and bulk up its weight accordingly and, to apply that cliched metaphor, punch that weight. We can't wallow in nostalgia about peacekeeping and grumble about being under-recognized when we hide our light under a bushel, and announce we are pulling out of an eight-year commitment now that we are on the verge of participating in a much-desired and very necessary victory.
In geopolitics, flyweights aren't heavyweights. There is no international free lunch. And being served one is an ignoble ambition for such a distinguished country as ours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I am not a particular fan of Black as a person, and I don't entirely agree with his rationale here, I do agree with the conclusion that Canada and its NATO allies have an interest in helping Afghanistan become a more normal and self-sustaining state, as well as a moral duty to do so. Afghanis overwhelmingly want us there, and don't want us to allow their (albeit flawed) government to collapse into anarchy allowing the Taliban to retake the country. I don't know what more the left wants. I agree that our strategy has been flawed in ways, but just because we are incapable of perfection is no excuse not to try.
jade_lee
Active Member
Until our current government hands over the redacted information about who did what when with Afghan detainees I don't have any reason to trust their mission then or now in Afghanistan. As for Conrad Black , I hope he finally shuts up upon his appeal. It will be interesting to see how quickly he is asked to return his order of Canada. If he is unable to convince the court that he isn't the lying thief a jury decided he was, will the National post still welcome his silver spoon up his ass opines?. It cracks me up that he is able to write opinions from his jail cell about the path we Canadians should take. I also wonder if he will settle back in Canada once he gets out of the slammer. Just visiting?
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
You're resorting to ad hominem attacks. I don't care for Black either, but he is a very insightful. I don't think you can dismiss his argument about Afghanistan because he was convicted of some completely unrelated crimes.