Years Later, DND is Concerned About Torture

Sure, it’s a little late, but General Walt Natynczyk wants to know what happened to the report on the torture by Afghan personnel of a detainee we handed over to them (and whom our soldiers then rescued from his torturers).  From CTV.ca:

The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.

In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.

A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

Natynczyk’s deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.

The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after.

Diplomat Richard Colvin testified before a special House of Commons committee in November that he repeatedly warned federal officials in 2006 and 2007 that prisoners faced the possibility of torture in Afghan jails.

This is good news, a little late, but good news nonetheless.  Will this help end the contention that no one was tortured, or that the torture was nothing more than just being beaten by a shoe.

I have more thoughts on the matter here, but I’d like to ask why it’s so controversial to suggest that we shouldn’t be complicit in torture when, apparently, our troops on the ground think we shouldn’t be involved in torture?

Michael Ignatieff and the Continuing Saga of Unfulfilled Promise

(No, I’m not going to write a Dear John letter to Michael Ignatieff.  I never expected him to amount to great leader; I just hoped he might become one.)

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

Did McCallum just Accuse the Government of Canada of Committing War Crimes?

Yup, former Liberal defence critic did exactly that:

McCallum: “I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they’re covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues.”

This fiasco has just hit a new low and McCallum just drove a truck right smack into the middle of it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t McCallum the minister responsible for the prisoner transfer agreements when this whole war started?

In the Honduran Election, the Role of Ronald Reagan Will be Played by Barack Obama

Back in the summer, news outlets were aflame with the Honduran “coup“, but, as sometimes happens, the public and the media seem to grow weary of a story, and do not follow through its progress with the same vigour it displayed during the initial incident.

In that vein, I’d like to point out (because I haven’t seen it mentioned in many places) that Honduras has held its election to choose a new president, and that president is Porfiro Lobo.  From The New York Times:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared headed toward victory on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer’s coup and end its isolation.

The electoral tribunal said Sunday night that Mr. Lobo had 52 percent of the vote, with almost two-thirds of the votes counted. That gave him a margin of 16 percentage points over his main opponent, Elvin Santos.

The decision by the Honduran congress to refuse to re-instate former president, and wannabe dictator, Manuel Zelaya for the remaining two months of his scheduled term is great news.  Honduras still has a lot of problems, but they have demonstrated an adherence to the principles of constitutional democracy – a stand for which they have received too little support from other nations of the “free world”.

Of course, Zelaya’s comrades in tyranny are not so happy.  From Bloomberg:

Venezuela said U.S. President Barack Obama, after recognizing Honduran election results, joins earlier presidents who had “violent relations” with the continent such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry reiterated it won’t recognize the “farce” elections in Honduras on Nov. 29, and condemned other governments in the region that have done so, including Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica.

“The government of Barack Obama is now openly inscribed in the tradition of violent relations with our continent, recalling the insulting times of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, among others,” the Foreign Ministry said in an e-mailed statement. “The position of the U.S. government was particularly shameful as the principal architect of the coup.”

Congrats, Mr. Obama.  Being despised by a dictator is a badge of honour.

Mr. Obama’s Afghan Surge: What Do You Think?

As I mentioned, I did not watch Mr. Obama’s speech last night; I did, however, read the speech (which you can find here).  I have a quick post about it at my blog.  Basically, I don’t think Mr. Obama made his case for another surge, and I’m still inclined to think the U.S. should withdraw (though I am open to being dissuaded).

That being said,  I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama is right.  I’d like to see as little death and suffering (in the long run) as possible.  If this proves to be the way to achieve this, then I will be happy to have been proven wrong.

So, what do the readers of ThePolitic think?  Is Mr. Obama’s plan a good one?  Why or why not?

(For a few other interesting takes on the subject, check out Chris Dierkes, Nick Gillespie, Glenn Greenwald and Reihan Salam.)

Rethinking Terrorism

This post isn’t as timely as I’d have liked, but it’s taken a while to bang these ideas into shape.

Let me begin by getting right to the point: we aren’t fighting a war against terror. We’re fighting a war against jihadism.

This may seem like nitpicking, or even wilful obfuscation, as terrorism and jihadism are often used interchangeably. Allow me to explain why I think it‘s an important distinction worthy of further consideration, since I also believe that this distinction is already being made in a way that suits our enemy more than it helps our cause.

A couple of weeks ago a Fox News poll came out showing that some 61% of young people in the US didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack per se, but as a killing spree. Conservative bloggers responded with anger and disbelief. To them it was obvious that Hassan was a terrorist. That the American public was getting it wrong was the fault of liberal media bias and the Obama administration’s overall failure of leadership regarding defence and security. [Read more]

We Demand a Public Inquiry into Torture

ThePolitic’s favourite Ordinary Gentleman, Scott H. Payne, has decided he’s had enough of just writing about the Afghan torture/Richard Colvin affair.  He doesn’t like what’s going on, and he wants to see a public inquiry into the matter.  Accordingly, he has started an online petition:

Whereas, on November 18 former senior Canadian diplomat to Afghanistan Richard Colvin testified in front a House of Commons committee stating that most if not all Afghans handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian forces in Afghanistan were subject to torture; and

Whereas, Colvin wrote as many as 17 memos via the appropriate channels attempting to alert the appropriate authorities reaching as far up as one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s senior security advisers to the likelihood of Canada’s complicity in enabling the torture of Afghans via the appropriate channels of communications that have been heretofore ignored; and

Whereas, despite a long and distinguished career of service to his country, the Harper government has responded to Colvin’s testimony in a dismissive and cavalier fashion and has explicitly questioned Colvin’s credibility instead of addressing his concerns; and

Whereas, the government of Canada has not only failed to adequately address Colvin’s testimony, but has also acted in a questionable and potentially obstructionist manner towards a Military Complaints Commission whose purpose was to address those concerns; and

Whereas, the Canadian government has a history of failing to notify the Red Cross of any prisoner transfers in Afghanistan in a timely fashion; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques by Afghan authorities in places like Kandahar is understood to be standard operating procedure; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques on prisoners is morally abhorrent and anathema to the values of Canadian society and government;

Therefore, we the undersigned citizens of Canada demand that the government of Canada submit to and coordinate a full public inquiry into the serious allegations and concerns that have recently come to light around Canada’s involvement in delivering Afghan prisoners into conditions of torture by Afghan authorities.

We’ve had our own little debate about the matter, so I thought I’d let all our readers know in case they wanted to sign the petition.  Normally, I don’t bother with online petitions, but, considering that I decided to stir things up the other day, I thought I would, pace Scott, put my money where my mouth is.  So I signed his petition.

Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says

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?

Is Obama About To Sell Out US Sovereignty?

A friend forwarded this video onto me today and it’s worth a viewing folks!

Some notes that I have…

1)Yes, the US Congress would have to ratify any treaty that US President Obama enters into; historians recall Woodrow Wilson’s messy attempt at starting the infamous League of Nations, in which the then-President came back to the States and find that Congress wouldn’t allow the US to join it!

2)No, the treaty isn’t much different from other institutions and treaties the US entered, be it the UN, NATO or NAFTA. The difference, if Lord Monckton is to be believed is that the treaty is specifically designed in order to lock the US into it, which could quite well be a reaction to former President Bush’s removal of the US from previous agreements Bill Clinton set up.

3)Finally, while the US is the focus of this video, shouldn’t we be having more discussion about this treaty and what it means for Canada? On this note, it looks like all of our politicians are failing us by not looking out for our great nation!

---

Matthew Campbell runs Election Target, a free, interactive election prediction website located at www.electiontarget.com.

Prizes that patronize

One wonders how many White House staffers are wincing with the news that Obama has won, undeservedly, the Nobel Peace Prize. Even the President can’t be altogether comfortable with this one, though he wouldn’t be the first world leader carried away by his own hype, be it trivial and rhetorically insincere.

Tom Piatak assesses it well:

Comes news this morning that our beloved President has at last won the Nobel Peace Prize. We can all be glad that the Nobel committee overcame the stark racism that denied Obama the Nobel Prize for Literature for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. I suspect that racism has also been behind the denial of the Nobel Prizes for Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine to Obama, whose accomplishments in those fields very nearly equal what he has accomplished so far in the Presidency. We can only hope that we make contact with extraterrestrials before Obama leaves the White House, so that other worlds will be able to join ours in giving Obama the honors he so obviously deserves.

Or as John Podhoretz surmises:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Satire to one side, Peter Schramm offers a sensible enough strategy for Obama’s way forward:

I woke up to this stunning decision (as the WaPo calls it) this morning. (We should be prepared to be surprised in politics, right? And we never are, are we?) The problem is that everyone understands that he doesn’t deserve it (and I mean no disrespect to the President Obama). One wag said on CNN this morning that the lefties in Oslo are attempting to tie Obama’s hands on foreign policy, especially regarding decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Maybe. But this does give Obama a great opportunity: Mickey Kaus suggests that he turn it down. I agree. It would be magnanimous-like act, offered by a statesman who understands that the world does move, or should move, on merit. If he accepts it, there will be a political backlash for some will start arguing that his future war decisions will be taken for the wrong reasons. He cannot afford that opinion settling in on the public. The decisions on Afghanistan, just to cite the most obvious example, are tough enough to figure out without such calculations. He should turn it down.

Next Page »