Within a “tranche” of previously undisclosed documents, the Globe finds an unmet pledge to build a prison in Afghanistan and a dispute between Afghan and NATO officials over access to detainees.

The NDS chief also complained bitterly to Canada, Britain and the Netherlands that their follow-up inspections aimed at making sure prisoners weren’t being transferred to torture – an international war crime – were creating problems in the prisons. Unexpected and multiple inspection visits were unwelcome, he wrote, and infringed on Afghan sovereignty.

Mr. Saleh threatened to cut-off inspections and – apparently seeking to appease the NDS chief – the three countries agreed to only conduct joint visits with plenty of advance notice and limit them to once a month at most. “We hope this will minimize any disruption caused by our access to your facilities and allow access arrangements to resume,” Canada, Britain and the Netherlands said in their written response to Mr. Saleh. “As the three main nations who transfer detainees over to NDS custody, we have discussed how best to respond to your concerns,” the letter says.

About 70 minutes late, the Prime Minister’s interview with the masses is now online.

For those who wish to read along, here is the transcript distributed by the Prime Minister’s Office. Continue…

The Scene. Bob Rae stood, with a number of papers in his right hand, and attempted to square what the Prime Minister seemed to say last week about the mandate of Justice Frank Iacobucci with what the government actually announced about Mr. Iacobucci’s mandate this weekend. Suffice it to say, Mr. Rae found the latter quite lacking.

John Baird was sent up to read from the script. “Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister did say in this place last week. He said that he had requested Justice Frank Iacobucci to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of all the redacted documents related to Taliban prisoners. Justice Iacobucci will look at all the relevant documents going back not just to this government but even to the previous government,” Mr. Baird reported. “He will report on the proposed redactions, how they genuinely relate to information that would be injurious to Canada’s national security, national defence or international interests. We should have confidence in a man of this gentleman’s esteem.”

For all intents and purposes, this line of inquiry was thus concluded. Still, the opposition kept on. Continue…

Faced with an international backlash, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is easing off somewhat on his highly controversial bid to take control of the watchdog agency that investigates complaints about cheating in Afghanistan’s elections.

Continue…

The government releases Frank Iacobucci’s terms of reference, the opposition is unpersuaded.

“We’re disappointed that the government has told Mr. Iacobucci to basically decide which documents to withhold from Parliament and the Canadian people,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said after an event in Toronto Saturday. ”He’s been given an impossible job and we don’t believe we’re going to get to the bottom of the Afghan detainee scandal this way,” he said.

This week’s must-read on the Afghan file, I think, is Brian Stewart’s column about the growing sense that Karzai is more a part of the problem than he is a partner in a lasting solution. He’s fantastically corrupt, questionably loyal, and poor (if not completely uninterested) in actual governance. And while there’s no question that Karzai is a genius at political survival, he’s abetted by a very general but-he’s-our-bastard attitude in the West.

But maybe Karzai is neither solution nor problem, but simply irrelevant. Continue…

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.

As the Star notes, the U.S. State Department has released its annual human rights reports for the countries of the world, including Afghanistan.

Human rights organizations reported local authorities tortured and abused detainees. Torture and abuse methods included, but were not limited to, beating by stick, scorching bar, or iron bar; flogging by cable; battering by rod; electric shock; deprivation of sleep, water, and food; abusive language; sexual humiliation; and rape. An April Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) report stated that torture was commonplace among the majority of law enforcement institutions, especially the police, and that officials used torture when a victim refused to confess to elicit bribes or because of personal enmity. Observers report that some police failed to understand the laws regarding torture.

The Scene. “Mr. Speaker, the detainee issue—”

The leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition had barely completed the words before members opposite were groaning and moaning and muttering. They had apparently arrived this afternoon hoping to be entertained. Alas, Michael Ignatieff, in the face of futility and unpopularity, continues to insist on using this time to ask questions.

“—is about fundamental issues about Canadian democracy,” Mr. Ignatieff continued. “It is about the respect for human rights, our international obligations under the Geneva Convention and ministerial responsibility to fulfill those obligations. We on this side of the House have called for months for a full public inquiry about the Afghan mission, going right back to the beginning in 2001, and no new information will change this party’s position on that issue.

“I ask the Prime Minister once again: Will he do the right thing and allow Justice Iacobucci to lead a full public inquiry?”

The Prime Minister stood here to shrug and dismiss and repeat himself. “We have asked Justice Iacobucci, who is a very respected Canadian, to review that work and ensure that all information is indeed available,” he concluded. “I think that information continues to show that all personnel of the Canadian government have acted with regard to their obligations at all times.”

Perhaps it is the Prime Minister’s hope that this can be matter can be bored to death. And, indeed, there may be something to that. Patience is not exactly prized in Ottawa. It is remarkable, to a certain extent, that this issue has persisted as it has, enduring despite the constant allure of shiny things like Helena Guergis. Continue…

Canadian Press delves into a proposed, but ultimately rejected, plan to put the Afghan army in charge of detainees.

NATO allies lobbied Afghan’s president for a separate legal framework to handle prisoners captured around Kandahar in late 2006 but those efforts “went nowhere,” say internal memos. The records outline an early strategy of the Canadian government as it faced pressure from the International Red Cross and others to take more responsibility for captured Taliban fighters…

The idea was to let the fledgling Afghan army operate a detention facility built by the U.S. rather than rely on either the National Directorate of Security or the country’s shaky correctional system. The proposal included a demand that Afghanistan create a separate legal framework for terror suspects, similar to the U.S. system of military tribunals. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was pressed to carve out “a new detainee policy that would have made the Afghan army responsible for prisoners and created a new class of detainees, but efforts have gone nowhere,” says a Dec. 4, 2006, memo.

The prepared text of Michael Ignatieff’s speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament, he said, to “recalibrate” the government’s agenda. We were told to expect vision, ambition, great plans in the Speech from the Throne.

There is none of that here.

“Recalibration” was a fiction. A flimsy excuse from a Prime Minister who gambled on cynicism and lost.

Continue…

The Scene. “Why don’t you ask a question about the economy?” pleaded one voice from the distant recesses of the Conservative side.

“What about jobs?” begged another voice from the furthest reaches of the government benches.

Sadly, though reputed to do a fine a cappella version of Free Bird, the leader of the opposition does not take requests. And paying no mind to his partisan audience across the way, he insisted on asking the government, once more, to explain precisely what it is it wants Justice Frank Iacobucci to do. “When will we see Justice Iacobucci’s written mandate? What will the mandate be, and when will he report to us about his findings?” he wondered aloud.

The Prime Minister stood and responded in kind, singing from his songbook in shrugging one-part harmony. “Mr. Speaker, I think we have been very clear,” he sang. “We are asking Justice Iacobucci to look at all of the documents that have been previously reviewed by public servants in terms of access to information. Justice Iacobucci will conduct a thorough inquiry on those documents and he will report according to his terms of reference.”

Ralph Goodale loudly wondered where precisely those terms of reference were. Bob Rae, it would seem, took quiet note. Continue…

Conservative backbencher Stephen Woodworth will accept your apologies now.

now that war crimes accusations remain unabated will those who misleadingly said prorogation was to avoid that will admit their error

A diplomat tells CBC she warned Paul Martin’s government in 2005 about the risk of torture.

Meanwhile, CBC obtains a power point presentation prepared for Peter MacKay in the spring of 2007 that advised the government to stick to its story.