Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

A serious allegation

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 5, 2010 10:35pm - 238 Comments

The CBC led tonight’s National with a rather serious allegation: that detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information. The allegation is made by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who claims to have seen uncensored documents that indicate this.

Here is Terry Milewski’s report. Make of it what you will.

Tags: Afghanistan, Amir Attaran, cbc, detainees, The National, torture, transfers, University of Ottawa

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Who is Amir Attaran?

A former colleague and close personal friend of Ignatieff's at Harvard.

You'd think the CBC in the interest of full disclosure should be informing Canadian's of Mr Attaran's relationship with Ignatieff. But I'm hardly surprised that they don't.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Wow, isn't that a coincidence. Not. Maybe he wants to get into politics.
Anon001

Yes, it's true. Ignatieff has friends. Unlike Harper, who has to pay people (with taxpayer money) to be his friends :-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Agreed, it would have been better for the CBC to identify that link.

Maclean's Regular

Yes,. And they can point out at the same time that Steve Janke is a notorious smear-merchant who has been accused of libel in the past for making unsubstantiated allegations.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

…and never convicted, just as in this case he might be accused, but of course that would also be a false accusation.

Maclean's Regular

So what?
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

What's the point of telling people about false accusations? If I call you a pedophile, does that have a bearing on your credibility on this page?
Maclean's Regular

It wasn't a false accusation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Everything Janke said about Attaran is absolutely true and verifiable.
Maclean's Regular

No one's claiming otherwise.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

You are: Steve Janke is a notorious smear-merchant who has been accused of libel in the past for making unsubstantiated allegations
Maclean's Regular

You are:

No, I'm not. That isn't with respect to his latest post.

Try to read for comprehension.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Then why mention it at all?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Sorry for not being aware, but how is Steve Janke involved in this particular aspect of the detainee issue?

kcm

But there's more context to the story then that. Attaran has been a critic from early on [ not saying he's right or wrong]. The fact that he's a friend of Ignatieff is hardly as important a factor in this as Attaran's persistent criticicism. Personally i'd be sceptical of him…but for cons to jump all over the Ignatieff connection is frankly silly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

The good reason to have the CBC identify the link between Ignatieff and Attaran is to (attempt to) prevent exactly this type of tangential discussion which distracts from the real issue. Or, it is easier to demand squeaky clean behaviour from others if you can demonstrate it yourself.

OTOH, I'm not sure that such a disclosure would be completely effective, since it still leaves the actual linkage between the two intact, with all of its inferences. On balance I'm not trying to defend the cons, but I do accept that it would have been at least marginally better to declare that linkage.

Btw, I thought the CBC story did mention that Attaran has been involved in investigating the detainee issue for many years…

Justin

"The good reason to have the CBC identify the link between Ignatieff and Attaran is to (attempt to) prevent exactly this type of tangential discussion which distracts from the real issue."

Wouldn't identifying the link just encourage it?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Can't disagree, and I did try to hint at that possibility. Ultimately it is, to a large extent, a lose-lose scenario.

My thinking is that in either case there is almost certainly going to be some time and effort expended discussing the link and its relevance; that time and effort can be marginally reduced by getting the first part out of the way as quickly as possible. It is only my suspicion, though.

http://intensedebate.com/people/G0D God

About a half dozen serious journalists have been spending the last few months collecting a body of evidence against this government that will bring this whole temple down on Harper's head.

Harper knows what is waiting for him on the front page of the newspaper one of these mornings. He is absolutely terrified. Harper knows what is in those documents, and so do a lot of other people in Ottawa.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Can Harper dodge the bullet by sacrificing Peter MacKay?

wilson

Did Chretien wear Somalia?
Who wore Somalia?

http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

As I recall, the soldiers who killed the young boy "wore" Somalia.

Mike T.

God no longer accepts human sacrifices, Ask hm yourself

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Harper knows what's in the documents, which is why all this bluster doesn't concern him in the least.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Then why the smear (Colvin) and stonewall? Surely he could have handled things better than this?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Just because Harper may consider the accusations untrue, that does not mean he need not defend himself. In fact, when your detractors feel they need not rely on accuracy, that is when they can be most dangerous.

And as for the redacted documents, perhaps they truly mean what they say? Perhaps there is some sensitive information in there that should not be release while we have troops in Afghanistan.

Perhaps they could have handled things better, but I fail to see how. If they had lent credibility to Colvin's claims, which in mind were fanciful, that simply opens the door to more forceful and less truthful attacks. The fact is, Colvin and others fave failed to provide any direct evidence that a single Canadian detainee was ill-treated, it is all speculation and conjecture based on half-truths.

wellwell

"Colvin may himself feel that he is right, but that doesn't mean he is."

You've got a lot of nerve, s_c_f. Everything you've posted is based on your own 'feeling' that you are right, in the absence of any concrete proof about anything.

Let's release the documents, and cut out the smears.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I don't know if I'm right or not, but I have spent time examining Colvin's evidence and all the other evidence out there, which is enough for me to say that I'm not convinced that our troops had any involvement in torture whatsoever.
Holly Stick

I notice that right here you have gone from saying Harper has a right to defend himself to saying "I'm not convinced that our troops had any involvement in torture". Of course Colvin never accused the troops of any such involvement; it's the deicision makers at the top he was concerned about..

Way to try to deflect atention from Harper and the rest who will bear the responsibility if the allegations are true; and in that case they should face criminal charges.
Mike T.

Oh, he doesn't genuinely feel he's right.
Maclean's Regular

"Perhaps there is some sensitive information in there that should not be release while we have troops in Afghanistan. "

Like Canadian officials handing over detainees to be tortured?

I can't think of anything else. Can you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes, I could instantly think of many things: strategy, troop positions and numbers, future plans for advancement, details about weaponry, details about deployments, etc…. there are a MILLION things you'd prefer your adversary did not know in a conflict.
Maclean's Regular

Yes, I could instantly think of many things: strategy, troop positions and numbers, future plans for advancement, details about weaponry, details about deployments, etc…. there are a MILLION things you'd prefer your adversary did not know in a conflict.

From years ago? Don't be silly.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Doesn't matter how old it is if much of it is still true today. It's the same war.
http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Point taken, but how is releasing "sensitive" information to our MP's putting the troops in danger? Are we worried an MP will leak the info? I'm certain there are means to ensure the utmost secrecy of any sensitive information in the documents.
Once the committee sees the un-redacted documents, they can address the issue. No wrongdoing, the info remains closed, and a feather in SH's accountability cap. Since Mr Harper assures us there was no indiscretion, it should be a no brainer for him. The quickest way to end the "scandal" is to prove beyond a doubt it doesn't exist.
kcm

Stop making sense…that's far too obvious a course for a chess master…for one thing it doesn't allow for prorogation anywhere. Proragation is the surest to prevent leakage of sensitive information.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

danby: "how is releasing "sensitive" information to our MP's putting the troops in danger?"

Indeed! I am genuinely curious what the reasoning is behind the idea that releasing top-level policy decisions from 2006 could impact CF personnel on the ground in 2010. The only thing I can think of is that it would give the Taliban a PR victory and/or enrage their fighters. To which I'd answer, the Taliban already have all the PR stuff they can cope with, and torture is not going to raise a lot of eyebrows over in Kabul; and the Taliban fighters seem pretty motivated already, though much more so by the US drone campaign than by some policy stuff by a minor coalition partner from 4 years ago. No no, this is about us any way you slice it; the Taliban are pretty tangential to the whole business.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

agreed. this cpc talking point would near have us believe are troops are currently being coddled by the taliban, which is but the finest grade of bs.

like you say Jack there is far more driving the taliban toward a fever pitch if they haven't already reached it then a memo pointing out facts that they likely all ready know.
FVerhoeven

and if this story goes all out internationally? That would not score big time for the Taliban?????

Call our troops home immediately. Now!

If members of Parliament and the general population on longer know who to cheer for then let's bring our boys and girls home.

War is not as simple as some make it out to be. Far from it.
Mike T.

Perhaps they could have handled things better, but I fail to see how

***

By handing over the documents to the standing committee and not proroguing for months, for starters.

Duh.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

The events occurred in 2006 and before, so your suggestions that a delay of 6 weeks in 2010 has any bearing is up to your usual standards of lacking any logic whatsoever.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

maybe the allegations are baseless; time will tell.
But feel free to kick start the smear campaign
Wascally Wabbit

I guess that means – by extension – anyone who was a friend or former colleague of just about anyone who isn't a CPC baa lamb has an agenda and knows nothing….duh!
Did any cartoonist do one yet of Harper painting a floor and finding himself stuck in the corner – with his little band of trolls?
Anon

I wonder if they held off on this story until the Olympics were over.
knick

This would explain why Harper & Co. have insisted all along that enquiries about Afghan detainee abuse are 'attacks on our soldiers' – because Harper & Co. were fully aware of what they had ordered our soldiers to do.

Mike T.

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt on that, but its looking more and more plausible.

wilson

Don't get too excited about Attaran's interpretation of documents he claims to have seen sprite 1949.
Everything is a Human Right to Attaran.

http://www.infertilitynetwork.org/ivf_funding_Att…

Maclean's Regular

"Everything is a Human Right to Attaran."

For which Conservatives such as you and the rest of the trolls here should be grateful. Under other circumstances, you lot wouldn't be around at all.

W.B.

The Conservatives and supporters are making a big mistake if they wrap themselves in the mantle of our brave, glorious, pure hearted, morally impeccable troops. They are a cross section of of young Grade 12 educated males for the most part. Don't expect too much. Remember Somalia and the American Iraq War scandal. It takes a few years after every war for the truth about atrocities to come out as they will in this one as well. Ninety percent of what the Conservative jingoists say about our brave troops is garbage.

Mike T.

There's nothing wrong with only graduating high school, and there are many people with college and even professional degrees serving in the military. That doesn't mean they are above scrutiny and they should be punished if they have done wrong, but for the most part I am sure they are dedicated men and women called upon to do a dangerous job.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sprite1949 sprite1949

The recent allegations of what the documents might reveal is extremely troubling and saddens me. That this is a potentially, mammoth coverup angers me. Is Canada "the peacekeeper" a relic from the past? We should not stand by and allow this to happen. Delaying the truth will not change the truth.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

For business and sports news if my memory serves me right.
Mike T.

For the record, has there been a past incident, in the entire history of Canada, where an MP made public information which directly and obviously put Canadian soldiers in danger. (Actually, I think there was a press release which accidentally told the date of a Minister's visit to Afghanistan, but that was a government office, right?)
Poker Face

Here's my issue. If he (or someone else) has these documents making these allegations, why not release it themselves? Or, at very least, why not release the portions thereof that don't speak to other sensitive areas of national security. If it's as big as they say it is, it would be out already on the front page of a paper, especially if CBC or Attaran has seen these unredacted documents, n'est-ce pas? I'm a CPC voter, and I think these docs need to be released. I just find it odd that all these critics want to do is talk about it. Release them already if they have anything egregious about them!

Mike T.

My guess is that there may be penalties for releasing this kind of information, and he wanted to protect himself and his source. Or releasing the information could make the identity of the leaker obvious, and he wants to protect him. Or CBC is worried about its license.

Poker Face

The penalties be damned! (At least that's what I assume Deep Throat was thinking in the days when Watergate was in full swing.)

Andre

I have a question. Would a ranking official write in his report: "We transfered the detainee to the ANP. Maybe their torture techniques will extract more information."

Seem oddly self-incriminating to put in a report as the CBC describes.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Doubtful.. but they may well have written "US Central Intelligence requested detainee transfer to them for intelligence gathering. Verified with C.O. and transferred detainee as requested."

kcm

Well, that and the shredder…or the ultimate deterrent…send Cannon to fetch the docs.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

This is very serious. I hope it's not true. Attaran had better be able to back it up, in which case whoever gave that order should be removed from office and face criminal charges. On the other hand if Attaran can't back it up he should be sued for defamation to the tune of everything he's worth and then some.
FVerhoeven

Tjee, I'm sure glad that when my parents were subjected to WWII there wasn't all that Political Correctness catching like wildfire!. At least they, and many others, were given the chance for victory over evil.
FVerhoeven

I am not saying that it is ok for government to hide stuff from Parliament. What I am saying is that there is definitely a line that has to be kept in mind. If the opposition is serious about getting to the bottom of this, they could find various avenues of dealing with such a sensitive issue while thewar is going on. They could, for instance, approach the government in a less public way and have private meetings about this sort of thing. Why would the general public (or the general media) be involved in deciding what was wrong or right if not none of the finer details are open for discussion? As if every john doe in the street would know how to deal with specific war issues. Get real.
I know one thing for certain: I trust my own government and its practices a hell of a lot more than I trust the Taliban and its practices.
We can't go fighting wars with hands tied behind our back.
It's easy for an academic to stand on the sidelines and offer advice. But put him in the practical field and his carefully weighed expertise won't get him anywhere.

Mike T.

But the opposition has no interest at all in endangering Canadian soldiers. In fact, even if you choose to view them as crass, opportunistic craven….politicians, they have every reason to keep secret information secret while still bringing important information related to torture to light.

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/ MarkOttawa

There's another aspect to the Afghan detainee abuse matter that our media manage to ignore–willfully?

Maybe some former Liberal ministers should be worrying about their asses
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01…

Facts: The previous Liberal government and Afghan detainees
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01…

"Torture in Afghanistan: The Liberals knew" redux
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12…

Afghan detainees and the former Liberal government/Human rights Update
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12…
(letter in Globe and Mail)

Mark
Ottawa
Mike T.

Why would the general public (or the general media) be involved in deciding what was wrong or right

****

Why indeed? When you learn the answer to this question, you will have learned why you are wrong. NO one can teach you, it must come from within.
http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

In case some have forgotten, the Libs voted FOR the NDP motion, that was passed by the House, saying "That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in accordance with Part I of the Inquiries Act, call a Public Inquiry into the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to 2009." You all note the dates, 2001-2009, so including Libs' period until 2006, right? So respect Parliament, release the docs to the committee and call an inquiry, we're all agreed then? http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat…
Don

I suspect that the good professor’s proof came from the same bin that produced the cold fusion claim.
Chuck Vs. 2010

Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran…

LMFAO, got to love the CBC and Macleans,,,

And Errol Mendes is also someone to quote as non bias. Got to love Rogers Macleans, no bias here. And The Government trying to open up the telco networks has nothing to do with the lame coverage from Macleans..

When is the next Iggy puff piece…
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Typical playing the victim card – how weak is that.
Justin

This spacing and rhetoric looks a bit familiar. It looks like Biff got himself an alias.
Dot

Somehow, if "detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information" I suspect many of the outside Taliban would already be aware of this – unless the individuals have disappeared into a black hole somewhere, never having been heard from since.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

some conservatives. this board is filled with CPC flacks that jut wanna play hear no evil, see no evil, and attack the messenger.

Paris Hilton's lap dogs never behaved so well.
wilson

Not as weak as your comment.
Gayle

What an odd thing to say. Pointing out Chuck's comment was void of any actual facts or reasoned argument is not weak.
Patchouli

I guess it's easy for the conservative apologists to not care about Afghan detainees. But it's a slippery slope, and one day, the government that's hiding this information may hide information about something that's very important to you. And then what? You're saying it's okay for government to hide stuff from Parliament, and the people who voted them to power. Fact is: it's not.