Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says
November 19, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Well, the news is here. After the Conservatives failed to keep Richard Colvin silent or ignored, we learn that Canada may have sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured. Mr. Colvin, a diploma with Foreign Affairs, described a pattern of misbehaviour among Canadian officials in Afghanistan that facilitated torture.
Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.
“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.
The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”
As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.
So, who do we believe? The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:
Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”
Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.
My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished. Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity. Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin. The government’s argument is weak and implausible. It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured. Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.
Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices. If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.
It is imperative that any investigation be public. Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.
Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?
Don’t forget that one of the first things the Conservatives did was close up the loop holes that the Liberals left open and allowed torture. Are we supposed to believe that there was no abuses during the entire time the Liberals were in power? I don’t think so.
I’m more inclined to believe the Government on this, especially when this diplomat has zero evidence.
Justin, thanks for reading. I’m not much for the my-predecessor-was-worse defense. The Tories certainly deserve kudos for any improvements they have made to the situation, but I don’t think the work is done.
Also, from what I’ve read of your blog, I imagine you expect more of Mr. Harper’s government than of those of Mr. Chretien or Mr. Martin.
I do not believe for a moment, that the Commanders and soldiers in the field would hand over prisoners, knowing that they were sure to be tortured or abused.
Colvin says it was like, common knowledge, and that every prisoner got abused/tortured.
That is just not believable.
When ‘crediable’ allegations from several sources surfaced,
the Canadian government acted.
Up until May 2007, Canadian officials were not permitted to see the prisoners once they were handed over to the Afghans.
That changed with the Harper govt improved handover agreement,
There MUST be evidence before accusing your country of being complicite in war crimes.
Colvin believes his (anonymous) sources 2nd hand information,
the media believe anyone who accuses the Harper got of wrong doing.
NATO countries were dealing with a newly elected fragile Afghan government that took the sole responsibility of the detainees in the hand overs.
I believe, that once the govt and military were convinced that prisoners were being mistreated, they acted.
Colvin thinks everyone should have jumped at the snap of his fingers. Reality doesn’t work like that.
“virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”
I love this line, and it betrays the utter moral bankruptcy of the Conservative defense.
ALL statements about the torture of detainees will, of course, be second or third hand, unless the Canadian diplomat attended the torture sessions personally.
But the answer is simple. Hold an inquiry.
All Canadians, who are not left-wing extremist or terrorists coddlers, are demanding that the the opposition parties and the left-wing whack-jobs in the press gallery, lead by the far-left bias CBC,Tor star, Globe & Mail, and the CTV, explain why they are so, so concerned about the alleged mis-treatment of their beloved Taliban terrorist heroes, and why they hate our Canadian troops.
Why are the far-left opposition party members and the left bias, anti Conservative Party press so willing to believe the second-hand, unnamed, flimsy,alleged, possibly fabricated, instantiated “evidence” promulgated by a whack-job, terrorist loving, far-left diplomat, Colvin rather than their government? This terrorist loving traitor who has no creditability spins second-hand Taliban rumours from his terrorists friends who are attempting to discredit the Canadian troops by lying as they are trained to do in the Al Qaeda manual. Our Canadian legal system depends on evidence rather than here say from terrorists or terrorists supporters such as Colvin.
These, of course, are the same terrorist hugging opposition members who are extremely concerned about the human rights of terrorists such as the Canadian savage Khadr, but who despise our troops and everything that they stand for, and have always been against the war on terrorism.
Just so every one’s clear, as a Canadian I believe, if you are trying to arrange terrorist action against us or shooting at those fine men and women in uniform,who are working to smooth out your country’s problems, I support nipple size booster cables, feet in close proximity to a camp fire, or what ever needs to be done to put your sorry arse in its place.
That attitude is unsatisfactory. An inquiry is only as good as it satisfies the level of scrutiny of all the left-wing and right-wing wack-jobs involved.
In other words, you will spend more of my taxes to subsidize professional arguers on both sides of the fences who will repeatedly discuss the merits of more hearsay evidence ad nauseum. At the end of the day, if you do not like what the inquiry discloses (or fails to disclose) you can stiill cry foul.
I think the answer is even simpler: get the hell out of Afghanistan and pay an honest price for you energy supply.
Canada had nothing to do with torture , if there was any torture.Were there to help destroy the Taliban ,not be prison guards.Who really gives a rats ass what the Aphgans do to these murdering scum once we turn them over to them.ONLY LIBERALS..Maybe we should just take no prisoners.Shoot to kill and take no prisoners and see how long the war lasts.
The problem I have with Colvin’s testimony at present is the implication that there’s not a moral person in the decision-making structure of the Canadian military or government as it relates to Afghanistan. Are we to believe the only person of character strong enough to break the “wall of silence” is Mr. Colvin? Seriously?!
Canadians also need to think realistically about what Mr. Colvin has said and the reality of fighting the Taliban on the ground.
The Taliban abuse every rule of engagement. They dress to blend with civilians. They use human shields. They look every bit like the local farmer, taxi driver, etc. because they ARE the local farmer and taxi driver, etc. The local population is also known to aid and abet the Taliban and “insurgents” through signals, providing lodging and refuge and supplies. Read Michael Yon’s dispatches if you remain in doubt.
Is it really the fault of the military, then, when/if a scattered truly innocent local finds himself in the mix with Taliban and insurgents en route to detention and a dose of Afghan payback? Is this not collateral damage for the wanton abuse of war rules by the enemy?
Switching gears…
If memory serves me correctly, the handing over of detainees to the Afghans was preferred by the anti-war, anti-military, Taliban-loving crowd over leaving them in the hands of the draconian Coalition forces, including — heaven forbid — the Americans (the horror!!), lest we have another Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo on our hands.
Assuming the Afghans have tortured suspected Taliban and insurgents, has anyone bothered to ask WHY? I suspect it’s retribution, in part, for the living hell forced upon Afghans by the Taliban in times past and even today.
Well, anti-military crowd, you’ve got your cake. Now it’s time to eat it. Either let the Afghans will deal with their people like they want to, or put up and shut up and let the Coalition handle the detainees via military court and purpose build detention centres. I’m sure you’ll agree the “abuses” of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo ABSOLUTELY PALE in comparison to what the Afghans may be doing to their terrorist countrymen.
‘Cause what I am hearing now is that you don’t want the bloody Coalition to hold terrorists and, now that payback is on the table, you don’t want Afghans holding them either. Why not just come out and say it?–What you really want is to let the Taliban back into the population so they can attack our forces, incur casualties and give the anti-war military ammo to affect the perception of the Public so that they demand a pull-out.
Isn’t that what this is really all about?
Machiavelli’s response is interesting, in that removal of the loaded adjectives leaves nothing at all.
Charles, Mr. Colvin has asserted that MY government was informed of the consequences of handing over detainees. The denials so far from McKay to Hillier have been extremely unconvincing, and VERY carefully worded – attacks on the messenger, and multiple “I don’t recall” statements. . If you don’t want to know, no problem. I do.
Tell me, what specificallyh is it that you doubt?
- That detainees are tortured in Afghan prisons?
- That Colvin attempted to communicate this?
Day after day the MSM dutifully reports the atrocities perpetrated by the Taliban as though it is the norm … then Colvin pops up to accuse Canadians of blatant torture by proxy and everyone sides with this guy ! It is almost as though Calvin and the MSN are on the Taliban side !!!!
This smacks of a Liberal friendly ex-diplomat seeking revenge . If you listened to or read some of General Hilliers’s comments about the Lib-friendly senior bureaucrats sand bagging him , it puts this in perspective.
” … KABUL — A homicide bomber killed 16 people and wounded at least 23 others Friday in a busy city square in western Afghanistan, while near Kabul a powerful former warlord narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, officials said.
The attacks came a day after Afghan President Hamid Karzai took the oath of office for a second term amid escalating violence across the country. Karzai said he has put national reconciliation with Taliban insurgents at the top of his agenda. …”
Charles,
What do you propose?
I don’t think you’re so callous to think that these things could not have possibly happened simply because you are conservative and conservatives can’t look bad (unlike some others here). I seem to recall you going on record deploring the treatment of Omar Khadr even.
Obviously, the moment tax dollars are at risk, you become opposed to ANY solution.
We have a high ranking diplomat making extreme allegations about the conduct of our forces in Afghanistan. Do we simply ignore them, cover our ears and say “lalala” and then not spend tax payers money?
Packing up and leaving Afghanistan is a great idea but it does not change the fact that something criminal may or may not have taken place. The moment it becomes too expensive to investigate crimes is the moment our society falls apart.
Why not do both?
Nice attempt at distraction.
Under discussion are two fairly simple questions: were Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian forces subject to torture, and did Colvin attempt to alert MY government that?
It’s fun to watch all the smoke Conservative supporters are attempting to generate, as illustrated above, by speculating about Colvin’s motives, or reminding us that the Taliban are bad, or the usual drivel about biased media and yada yada yada.
Curious how everyone seems to ignore those two, simple, key questions…both of which could be answered with an inquiry.
I am quite comfortable ignoring those irrelevent questions because… brace yourself for a shot of reality: the answers make no difference.
How much is that going to cost?? Oh! I forgot! You do not care how much of other people’s money you spend. That never enters into the decision.
I told you but you do not want to listen.
Let me be explicit: I am quite confident that detainees are being tortured but neither I nor you can do anything about that. That is what seems to happen around people with guns and power. That is why I believe Canadian soldiers should leave.
I am quite confident that Colvin attempted to say whatever he had to say, that is an other reason why I believe Canadian soldiers should leave.
What I doubt is the honesty of The Mission in Afghanistan. I do not believe Canadian soldiers are there to fight terrorism or spread freedom or any other nonsense.
Now, the debate is all about throwing spit balls, throwing mud and laying blame — none of which will ever stop nor make a difference as long as confused conservatives and selfish socialists feel they have a right to spend other people’s money on foreign missions.
No, I reject the demand to shut up. I insist on getting out of Afghanistan.
You too seem to ignore what I said: get out of Afghanistan.
No, on two counts.
1) I think getting out of Afghanistan IS a solution.
2) taxation is not the reason why I oppose staying in Afghanistan. Rather, taxation is enough to discount your justiification to stay in Afghanistan. There is a difference between the two.
In simple terms, it does not matter what the hell you are doing, you do not have the right to spend MY money however you see fit.
— because as much as you socialists tend to worship the almighty power of the state, the reality of life is that justice is not always possible and justice is never free.
In spending MY money to attain YOUR continuous pursuit of higher morals, you are committing an injustice.
“Oh! I forgot! You do not care how much of other people’s money you spend. That never enters into the decision. ”
Yes, it does. However, as a taxpayer and a citizen, I’d like to know whether my government ignored these allegations.
You acknowledge that torture occurred, and you seem to accept the Colvin tried to communicate these concerns. You do not feel there is a need to establish who ignored or suppressed those warnings. Fair enough. I do. Tell you what – if you refrain from calling me a “selfish socialist”, I’ll refrain from calling you a moral cripple.
What a sad, wingnut spectacle most of this discussion is.
Charles,
You’re a defeatist.
-It will cost too much.
-It wont make a difference.
-Justice is not always possible.
In addition to being a defeatist, you’ve got quite the ego. When I call for action, I want MY tax dollars to work for the pursuit of justice. I seriously don’t care if you are worried about only YOUR tax dollars. You need to stop acting like your say carries any more weight than any other tax payer in this country. It’s the same pool I’ve been paying into, and as a tax payer, I think it’s important to conduct ourselves with dignity abroad and not be engaged in criminal actions. If we have been engaging in what this guy alleges, we need to be held accountable.
I suppose spending tax payer money on something you disapprove of is a greater crime than shipping men off to be tortured…possibly killed. Instead of griping about my pursuit of higher morals, try having morals.
And on top of that, let’s get the hell out of Afghanistan.
@wilson
Demanding that Canadian Forces, DND and DFAIT officials ensure that prisoners aren’t tortured after our soldiers hand them over to a foreign government is not an indictment of the troops on the ground.
@bert
Not everyone our soldiers capture is “murdering scum”. Further, we don’t get to abuse people just because we’ve captured them, even if they are “murdering scum”.
@Mark Peters
You’re right; things are complicated, but we, as a nation, should do our best to ensure that we are not facilitating activities that we deem improper and illegal. Perhaps such classifications are incorrect, but that is a different debate.
@Willy
Thanks for the non sequitor.
@balbulican
I would suggest two additional questions: 1) What can we do to avoid this in the future? 2) How can we ensure proper oversight?
@RD
I agree that an investigation into this matter is an appropriate use of tax dollars. Still, to be fair, I think Charles does care about other people’s tax dollars. I have found him to regularly take offense at the abuse of any and all taxpayers.
@machiavelli
Is there a reason there cannot be a conservative argument against torture? I have found that the best of late 20th/early 21st century conservatism has come about when conservatives have been defenders of the individual. Prisoner abuse is a definite assault on the integrity of the individual.
Is there a reason there cannot be a conservative argument against torture?
It’s difficult to articulate, since modern conservatism right now is mostly radical (ie., the opposite of conservatism). I don’t know how conservatives ended up being so confused about that. Conservatism isn’t fixed in time and place; it’s an approach (cautious, deliberative) to inquiry and problem-solving as the World moves on.
The best non-ideological argument against torture is this: it doesn’t work. Those who maintain it has are lying.
“Torture” has been, and is, practiced by regimes of every political stripe from left to right. Opposing torture isn’t a question of your position on the political spectrum.
You can oppose it morally because it’s simply wrong, or, as not enough coffee points out, because it’s ineffectual, often dangerously so. What we’re seeing on the blogs these days, however, is not a defense of torture per se, but a defense of or attack on our government’s action or inaction. That the government happens to be “conservative” in name is irrelevant.
@Coffee and balbulican
Thanks, I am glad to know not everyone thinks this should be fought on partisan grounds. I am a little worried about the “it doesn’t work” argument against torture. What if it turns out that it does work? I’d still be against the use of torture and I’d hate to have laid the ground work for someone arguing, “but it works”.
Jonathan: there was an excellent article on torture about two years ago in the Atlantic (hardly a lefty publication) which featured several interviews with officials and interrogators of Mossad on why that agency no longer sanctions torture. Put simply, after a certain point, a suspect will say anything to make the pain stop. Since interrogators are frequently looking for confirmation rather than revelation, suspects will simply validate whatever they think their captor needs to know, often resulting in the diversion of military, police and judicial resources down a blind alley.
Jacob Timmerman, in his memoir of imprisonment “Prisoner Without Name, Cell Without Number”, points out that the regimes who torture systemically don’t do it learn or discover. They do it to terrorize , and they do it to elicit false but legal justification for the ongoing persecution of their enemies.