Comments on: On Colvin's story: what we can learn from an earlier military inquiry

By: dave

dave — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:16:38 +0000

Technically, Canada wasn't responsible for the management of detainees until they took over Kandahar sector in mid 2005. Until then, Canadian Troops in Afghanistan were under the command of US or ISTF leadership and operated in accordance with their policies.

As one would expect in any command structure.

In addition, the case in question in the article refers to the operation of small commando forces, being the JTF Unit, turning those they captured over to the larger main military force, the US Army, and not the Afghanistan government. While the JTF was likely to be assigned to tasks that would see them target "high priority" enemy individuals, the kind who were likely to end up in Guantanamo, there's no reason they should not have expected a fellow Geneva signatory to behave inline with their convention obligations.

Nor, I suspect, would Wilson have been particularly appreciative of the suggestion that they would not at the time.

By: kcm

kcm — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:45 +0000

And note that there was no question of he libs covering up anything, which is the core of Colvin's allegations. The worst they could be accused of is incompetence…which is hardly news. What's more i'm not sure Wilson isn't spiinning the 3 years 11 months deal – anyone else know the facts?

By: PolJunkie

PolJunkie — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:47:43 +0000

I would love nothing more than to see a loose cannon like Hillier appear before the committee. I don't think that the Libs and Tories would want him there, though. He's likely to bring down this govt and the previous one with him.

If Canada is going to walk away from its peacekeeping role and get into the business of counter-insurgency, we need to make sure that this blatant disregard for international law does not happen again.

By: Blues Clair

Blues Clair — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:57:55 +0000

Well that was nice of the Harper Government to provide cover for the previous Liberal administration. So, wilson, you must want to get to the bottom of Colvin’s allegations, no?

By: croghan27

croghan27 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:53:17 +0000

Without ignoring Hillier, he has his own guilt/innocence to keep him awake – but Colvin was in a diplomatic stream and it is his mandrins where any inquirery should go. The military is working on its' own.

By: wilson

wilson — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:10:29 +0000

Be careful what you wish for Libs.

The first Cdn captured prisoners were in Jan 2002 and handed over to the US. (Eggleton investigated in committee)

It took the Liberal govt 3 years and 11 months to draft a prisoner protection agreement. Prisoners were being handed over all the while, with no assurance, what so ever, of their treatment. (Amnesty Int'l launches court case)

And the Liberal govt did not even sign the agreement,
General Hillier did, Dec 2005.

Colvin started his letter writing campaigne May 2006,
a new enhanced protection agreement for detainees, between the Harper govt and Afghans was signed May 2007.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:49:33 +0000

And before we get off in a big huff on this one, let's see what the other testimony has to say about this. We have heard from one witness, not really subjected to any real challenge. He may be right, but he may be wrong.

By: kcm

kcm — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:35:00 +0000

wow! So Hillier could wear this…assuming it goes anywhere at all. Who'd like to bet that Harper wouldn't let him swing?
Of course as JG says perspective is important in this debate. It seems to me that the "only" defensible arguement that govt fans have is this one. It was a complicated and entirely alien experience for the military [ although we had already been there a while ] and mistakes are comman place in war time. Our enemy is ruthless and our learning curve steep – all reasonable pov. Sometimes it seems to me in our 24/7 wired world that we really are striving to hold our whole govt process to a standard of perfection that would have seemed ludicrous only a generation or so ago. But nevertheless we are demanding that to the best of our ability high standards be maintained. So, let's not entirely lose perspective while trying to maintain those high standards, but equally let's cut out the false equivalencies of how" those' guys have no standards at all so why should we?

By: psiclone

psiclone — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:13:26 +0000

Wasn't Hillier given free reign on this file at the beginning and if so isn't he the next logical step to go before the committee?