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

What might have been (II)

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 12, 2010 2:08pm - 10 Comments

The Globe looks at the concerns within NATO in late 2006.

A memo obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that in 2006 the federal government was briefed on a lobbying campaign by NATO allies aimed at getting the Kabul government to create stronger safeguards for detainees after prisoner abuses elsewhere. “London, The Hague and Canberra [Australia] are deeply concerned about the absence of solid legal protections for detainees, which – in the age of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib – imperils domestic support for the Afghanistan mission,” said the memo of Dec. 4, 2006, written by diplomat Richard Colvin.

The memo was written after consultation with Catherine Bloodworth, a Foreign Affairs colleague, as well as the military attaché in Canada’s Kabul embassy. It was approved by David Sproule – then Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan – and was e-mailed to dozens of officials at Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office and National Defence.

Tags: Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Catherine Bloodworth, David Sproule, detainees, foreign affairs, Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay, Kabul, NATO, Privy Council Office, Richard Colvin, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

Wascally Wabbit

And the coverup comes further unravelled…

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Huh? If this is Colvin's smoking gun, it's lacking in smoke.

Amateur Hour

But CPC Ministers and their loyal generals, while backing the bus up over him, said Colvin didn't raise any alarms with his superiors at Foreign Affairs or with DND or the PCO.
They couldn't be a bunch of detestable scumbags, could they?
Heaven forfend!

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Does anything in this memo even suggest "alarm"? It says that three foreign countries weren't completely comfortable with the legal protection of Afghan prisonerss. That hardly suggests torture.

Amateur Hour

“London, The Hague and Canberra [Australia] are deeply concerned about the absence of solid legal protections for detainees, which – in the age of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib – imperils domestic support for the Afghanistan mission,”

When a senior diplomat tells his superiors/political masters … and those in other departments — that three allied governments with boots on the ground are "deeply concerned"… yeah, that's called raising an alarm in the diplomatic world. When he also calls out BY NAME Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, he isn't referencing the quality of the bed linens.

Don't be so obtuse.

kcm

It seems the leaks are coming fast and furious now. So, are they ochestrated or merely haphazard and random leaks from troubled bureaucrats, or both?

wilson

Leaked? G&M made no reference to the December memo being leaked, and no mention the memo was redacted,
so assume they got it thru FOI.

kcm

fair nuff. Have none of the recent memos and so on been leaks? i gotta pay closer attention.

wilson

IF the government did nothing,
you 'might' have a case,
but within months of this and other reports coming to the attention of govt officials late 2006,
a new agreement was negotiated with the Afghan Government,
a sovereign nation where NOTHING can be done without their permission.

And if you don't think that was fast enough,
then surely the Liberals taking 4 years to pen a poor agreement must have you overcome with anger.

kcm

"…then surely the Liberals taking 4 years to pen a poor agreement must have you overcome with anger"

What are you talking about? Prisioners before 05 went to the Americans. You must have been told this a dozen or more times now.