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?

U.S. War Deserter Should Stay in Canada

No, I don’t mean Rodney Watson, nor do I mean Kimberly Rivera.  I have little time for the pleas of those who join a volunteer army and then desert to avoid being a soldier.

I’m talking about Pte. Bethany Smith, now known as Skylar James.  Ms. James, gainfully employed in Ottawa, is a lesbian who willing joined the U.S. Army, adhering to the ludicrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Sadly, her fellow soldiers felt no such compunction, and outed her.  She has since been subjected to harassment and death threats.

And, considering what happened to Barry Winchell, I’d be wary of being dismissive of those threats.

Ms. James played by the rules.  She joined the army, “didn’t tell”, and planned on serving her country.  Unfortunately, her country failed her.  The Army, according to policy (and basic human decency), owes her a discharge.  Her superiors said they’ll take care of the paperwork after she returns from her tour… after she is shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who, it is reasonable to believe, might seek her death.

But for now, she is in Canada.

It is bad enough that the U.S. Army has a de facto discriminatory policy.  It is bad enough that they treat homosexuals as lesser citizens, whose service to country is devalued.  Beyond all that, they actively and tacitly support the subjugation and malicious imperilment of these people.  They need to address this matter and, finally, allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving their country.

Until they do, it is Canada’s duty to protect those whose worth the United States has callously discarded.

(Note:  This post has been edited to correct an error in Ms. James’ name.)

Stephen Harper: I Heart Torture

Well, what else am I supposed to believe after reading this story:

All three opposition parties have demanded that a diplomat who may have crucial information about the alleged torture of Taliban prisoners be allowed to testify before a military watchdog inquiry.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois each took turns peppering the Tory government Friday with questions about Richard Colvin, whom government lawyers are trying to strike from a witness list.

In this situation, being part of a cover up is as bad – as evil – as being part of the original transgression.  Torture has no place in the military operations of a liberal nation.  I’m not trying to put my head in the sand and say that it will never ever happen if it is not sanctioned by high-level decision makers, but when suspicions arise, our military and political structures have to be tuned to identifying and eliminating these abuses.

If the Conservative government wants to maintain a hawkish foreign policy, that’s fine; they’re the government and they get to take the lead in setting policy (though they don’t have the only say).  If, as part of this philosophy, they feel that certain interrogation techniques are valid, techniques that the rest of us might consider unacceptable, then they should be open and direct when questioned.  They should defend, in both practical terms and ethical terms, the interrogation techniques that our military sanctions, and they should do so in an open and robust debate.  They should not try to control the participants to an official inquiry.

Even the rhetoric they are employing is offensive, both to our intellects and to our soldiers.  Check out this exchange:

[Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings said the “honour and dignity” of Canadian soldiers demanded that the government be more open and stop “stonewalling” – something [parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, Laurie] Hawn, a former military officer, interpreted as a slight against those in uniform.

“To suggest the Canadian Forces or this government does not take seriously the type of allegations – allegations only – that have come forward is obnoxious,” he said.

This is utter nonsense, and Mr. Hawn should be ashamed, as I would think a man of his position is smarter than to actually believe the tripe he let out.  Ms. Jennings was defending our troops.  Our troops, on the whole, are honourable and they respect the inherent dignity of humanity as they carry out their difficult and dangerous tasks.  In order to maintain any sort of integrity in the military structure, when allegations of torture are presented we must shine as much light on the situation as possible.

This is the practical application of an interventionist liberal foreign policy.  Assuming that our soldiers are not, inherently, torturers (which was Ms. Jennings’ point), and deciding to fully investigate any allegations of torture is not “obnoxious”.  “Obnoxious” would be an obstinate stance that claims there can be no reason to be concerned about the possibility that the government and military are not doing there utmost to investigate and eliminate crimes against basic human decency.

I’m with Jim Manzi on the issue torture.  Even if we put aside the ethical issues relating to torture, torturous nations do not thrive; they do not persist.  This is not the type of nation that Canada should become.  Further, attempting to hide information about torture will serve us no benefit, either.  As a nation, we cannot survive by avoiding the truth and walling off information to the public.  Sticking one’s head in the sand serves no purpose but to expose one’s neck.

The War in Afghanistan… Maybe it’s Time to Pull Out

Look, let’s all face it.  The war in Afghanistan is not going as we’d hoped or planned.  We’re eight years in and it could be another eighty till we’re out.  I’m not quite ready to advocate a withdrawal just yet, but I think we need to re-focus, determine what purpose we’re trying to serve in Afghanistan then determine how we’re going to do it, and what milestones we might need to put in place.

Oh, and we should stop supporting the U.S. in their goals for poppy eradication, it’s just not worthwhile.

I’ve been thinking a fair amount about this recently after reading a series of posts at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

So, what do people think?  Should we stay the course, retreat to isolationism, return to our traditional peacekeeping role or develop – as I unfortunately put it in a response over there – a muscular, interventionist, liberal foreign policy?

Feel free to comment here, or pop over to The League to participate in their discussion.

For Country and Legacy, Afghan President Hamid Karzai Should Stand Down

In my latest op-ed, I argue that Afghan President Hamid Karzai should withdraw from the forthcoming presidential election, for the sake of both his country and his own legacy.

Do you agree?

Afghan-Canadian model village bombed

Are we exporting socialist economics and command economies?

I have never been to Afghanistan and I have no interest in going there. I really can not understand why anybody would care to go there — unless, of course, there is some pretty lucre to be gained. However, methinks that Canadians are sending a poor message overseas. This:

The village was unveiled just last month, in a project Canadian military officials hope will show how reconstruction and the prospect of employment can convince Afghans to turn away from the insurgents.

is obviously a pathetic failure. I hope clear-minded Afghans think: “Well, that did not work. If we want jobs, we are going to have to rely on ourselves. Governments suck at securing jobs and the economy.”

What could be more ridiculous than to try to teach people that you need a foreign military government to create jobs? The Canadian government can not even create jobs in Canada!

Happy Dominion Day!

From our family to yours, we trust you and yours have a safe and enjoyable July 1.

For the men and women of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and other corners of the planet, who wear the flag with pride, we trust you have an excellent day as well. May this day be one marked by peace even in the midst of conflict. God bless you and speed your return to your families today.

And may God bless this glorious nation, Canada! May she be forever strong and increasingly free.

Update 4:51 PM AST: A Vice-President of the Canadian Arab Federation, Omar Shaban, offers his view. (Hat tip to Kate, and an excellent catch by Tarek Fatah.)

F**k Canada Day

All I have to say is there are probably 100 flights per day leaving this country, Mr. Shaban.  Feel free to hop on any one of them at your earliest convenience and never return.  You might live here but you are not one of us.  The sooner you and others like you leave, the better.

Jack Layton calls for peacemaking in Afghanistan

Yeah, I blinked a couple of times myself. Jack Layton has called for Canadian Troops to be part of peacemaking in Afghanistan.

I’m glad the Prime Minister is seeing the wisdom of this approach now. Now let’s make sure Canada is a very active proponent of it and involved in it and bringing forward resources to help.

It’s a question of being thankful that the Prime Minister is now seeing that the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan requires negotiation. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it. Let’s make sure that Canada is very active using those skills and that reputation that we have as a country for being involved in peacemaking.

Geeze Jack, I thought we were Peacekeepers, not Peacemakers.

But I’m thankful that the the Leader of the NDP is now seeing that the pursuit of peacekeeping in Afghanistan requires peacemaking. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it.

No Conventional Victory in Non-conventional Warfare – General Mackenzie

Retired major-general Lewis Mackenzie discusses Harper’s stance on the War in Afghanistan:

There is no conventional victory in non-conventional warfare. There is no tickertape parade to mark the defeat of an enemy, nor is there a signing of a surrender document in a railway car in some faraway place. Insurgencies rarely totally disappear. The objective is to reduce them to a manageable scale where they have little impact on the day-to-day lives of the victim country’s population. Much like organized crime in a large American city – or, for that matter, a Canadian city, given the influence of street gangs in the past decade. Violent crime exists, and there are areas in some cities you should avoid; but the level of crime does not cause the average citizen to ask: “For safety’s sake, perhaps the better option is to join the bad guys.”

Nonpartisan – Is this really possible, or even wanted?

What really is ‘Nonpartisan’? Surely such a noble concept is worthy of political aspiration isn’t it? Shouldn’t we as a democratic nation seek to enshrine such a wonderful concept in the very fabric of that system?

In a word, no.

On Sunday March 1 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on CNN wherein he stated the following:

“We’re not going to win this war just by staying,”

“Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had – my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it’s probably had an insurgency forever of some kind. ”

“What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency.”

In response to this, Opposition Parties in the House of Commons attacked the Prime Minister for agreeing with them.

Yes, you read that right. The Opposition Parties and their Shadow Cabinets are attacking the Government for speaking in a manner that reflects what they believe. Nevermind the fact that we always knew going into this conflict that a permanent NATO presence in the country wasn’t an option. Nevermind the fact that killing every last member of the insurgency was never possible or indeed, even a stated goal.  No, the Opposition Parties want Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to be the enemy on this issue. They don’t want him to agree with them, or more dangerous for them, to be seen as agreeing with him. To that effect, they are attempting to paint this as a “flip flop” and try to make hay with it.

“By the way, Mr. Speaker, remember ‘cut and run’? Remember ‘we’re not going to leave until the job’s done’? What’s going on, Mr. Speaker?” said NDP MP Paul Dewar.

Not that we’re really listening to the NDP these days, but you’d think they’d at least be cheering about the idea of Canada leaving Afghanistan instead of attacking the government on that position. Oh that’s right, they flip-flopped themselves on that issue when their ‘Obamessiah’ came on board with Afghanistan. Or did they? The NDP confuse me regularly with their inconsistencies…

‘Nonpartisan’ is becomming the political catchword of 2009. With the new Administration in the United States ‘reaching across party lines’ et al, the constant stream of pleas from Canadian Political Parties to take nonpartisan approaches to governing and the expectations of Canadians to get on with governing, one might think that politicians would do just that.

The problem is, we don’t want it. Not really. When you get right down to it, we voted in (at least those of us who did vote) a Member of Parliament who represented the largest share of a particular belief and philosphy in a particular area. Those beliefs and philosophies are usually contrary to the other candidates. We then expect that person to go forth to Ottawa and defend and if possible, implement said positions; positions which are contrary to those who stand in “Opposition”.

The concept of a nonpartisan government would hand us such a homogenized, bland and stale system in which we might as well vote on every issue ourselves in national referendums. That would become tedious in short order and would ultimately fail miserably.

What surprises me though, is the track the opposition parties are taking on this issue. Instead of acknowledging the accuracy and maturity of the Prime Minister’s statement, they want to attack it as a reversal and somehow twist it into something offensive for their own benefit.

To me, it seems like the Prime Minister is attempting to put a realistic face on the mission and provide some serious and conscientious leadership on an issue that today, more than ever, needs clarity and vision.

Leave it to the Opposition to muck it up.

Again.

« Previous Page — Next Page »