Where the talk of torture could lead

By John Geddes - Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM - 16 Comments

Richard Colvin had barely finished delivering his incendiary testimony about torture in Afghanistan to a House committee last week before fierce debate broke out. For politicians and the public, the issue was whether the diplomat is a courageous whistleblower or an unreliable rogue. But among international law experts, the argument is about the ultimate outcome if his allegations—about federal officials ignoring clear warnings that detainees transferred by Canadian troops to Afghan authorities were being tortured—hold up. Is there a serious prospect of Canadian military or civilian officials being investigated and even charged as war criminals?

A few outspoken law professors quickly concluded that Colvin’s revelations formed a solid basis for a war crimes case. But others told Maclean’s that dramatic outcome is extremely unlikely. The experts are sparring over a relatively untested federal law. International law on war crimes went through a period of rapid reform in the 1990s, largely in the wake of atrocities committed in the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Prompted by the creation of the International Criminal Court, Canada passed a new Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act on Oct. 23, 2000. The first person convicted under the act, Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandan who led a band of murderers in that country’s 1994 genocide, was sentenced last month in a Montreal court to life in prison.

The possibility that the same law meant to bring the likes of Munyaneza to justice could be applied to Canadians involved in Afghan detainee transfers is sobering. Recognizing that even raising the possibility is controversial, some lawyers who have been hashing over the issue in private declined to be interviewed on the record. Yet several prominent academic experts said it could and should happen. “We must hope that the will to investigate and prosecute is present,” said Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia law professor and former federal NDP candidate in Vancouver. Continue…

'Elements of a war crime seem to be present'

By Michael Byers - Friday, November 20, 2009 at 1:41 PM - 12 Comments

Canadians should hang their heads in shame. Richard Colvin’s testimony about torture in Afghanistan is a searing indictment of government officials who either knew—or should have known—that Canada was transferring detainees to torture.

Between 2006 and 2007, Colvin, the second-highest-ranking Canadian diplomat in Kabul, sent 17 reports about torture to Ottawa. The reports, which were circulated widely within the departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defence, confirmed public warnings from international officials and journalists.

In March 2006, Louise Arbour, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, reported that complaints of torture at the hands of Afghan officials were “common.”

In June 2006, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission estimated that “about one in three prisoners handed over by Canadians are beaten or even tortured in local jails.”

In March 2007, the U.S. State Department reported that unconfirmed reports of torture were “numerous” in Afghanistan.

In April 2007, the Globe and Mail reported on “a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops.”

Yet the Canadian Government did next to nothing. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that “Canadian military officials don’t send individuals off to be tortured.”

Colvin’s testimony directly contradicts the Prime Minister’s statement. He reports that all the transferred detainees were tortured and that this was widely know in Kandahar, including among Canadian soldiers and diplomats.

Also in April 2007, then Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor told the House of Commons that the Red Cross would inform the Canadian government if it had any concern about the treatment of detainees. O’Connor later apologized, admitting the ICRC had always maintained its policy of reporting only to the Afghanistan government.

Colvin reports that the Red Cross tried unsuccessfully for three months to convey its concerns to the Canadian military about problems in the way Canada was reporting to the Red Cross when it transferred detainees to the Afghan authorities.

Colvin’s allegations have emerged because he was called to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission, a body—established after the Somalia Inquiry—which has been investigating detainee transfers at the request of Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association. The government sought to block Colvin’s testimony before the MPCC, citing national security. The obstruction prompted the three opposition parties to call Colvin to testify before a Parliamentary committee, where his voice could finally be heard. Now, the Canadian Government is seeking to shoot the messenger by publicly besmirching one of Canada’s finest diplomats.

Colvin currently serves as an intelligence officer at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., a post reserved for the very best in the foreign service. And he’s been put in an unenviable position, his career and reputation on the line, and has chosen to tell the truth rather than fall in contempt of Parliament. In addition to slurring Colvin, the Canadian Government is seeking to obfuscate the facts by claiming that it acted decisively to improve the detainee transfer arrangement put in place by the previous, Liberal government. Nothing could be farther from the truth: it took more than a year of complaints, news reports, litigation and political pressure before a new transfer arrangement was finally adopted in May 2007.

The actual facts are still emerging, but all the elements of a war crime seem to be present. The prohibition of torture ranks with the prohibitions of genocide and slavery as one of the most fundamental rules of international law. Torture—and complicity in torture—is a “grave breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. If Canadian officials allowed detainees to be transferred to Afghan custody despite an apparent risk of torture, and chose not to take reasonable steps to protect them, they are as guilty of a war crime as the torturers themselves. They could be prosecuted in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Or they could be hauled before the International Criminal Court. Canada has ratified the ICC’s statute, giving it jurisdiction over Canadians who commit war crimes anywhere. However, the International Criminal Court will not intervene if Canadian officials are willing and able to investigate and prosecute. We must hope that the will to investigate and prosecute is present. For imagine the damage to Canada’s reputation and influence if a general, ambassador or cabinet minister was prosecuted for war crimes in The Hague.

As Colvin himself explained: “If we disregard our core principles and values, we also lose our moral authority abroad. If we are complicit in the torture of Afghans in Kandahar, how can we credibly promote human rights in Tehran or Beijing?”

Even more seriously, the government’s indifference to torture may have created greater risks for Canadian soldiers. Insurgents who believe they will be tortured will fight to the death rather than surrender, placing Canadian soldiers at increased danger of harm. As a result, it is possible that one or more soldiers might have been killed as a result of the Canadian Government’s actions. Again, as Colvin cogently explained: “In my judgment, some of our actions in Kandahar, including complicity in torture, turned local people against us. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners. Canada’s detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.”

It’s time for Canadians to rally behind this brave and principled diplomat. It’s time to insist that any war criminals be investigated and prosecuted, regardless of who they are.

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. He has taught the laws of war at UBC, Duke University, Oxford University, the University of Cape Town and the University of Tel Aviv. Byers ran as an NDP candidate in the last federal election.

Idea rejected

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM - 9 Comments

Using statistical models I don’t fully understand, Alice Funke undoes Michael Byers’ proposal for a more or less united left.

Using riding-level data from the PunditsGuide.ca database, and calculating each party’s vote and the number of non-voters as a percentage of the number of electors in each riding, it was found that, over the seven general elections held in the last two decades, many previous party supporters would rather stay home than switch…

There are currently 36 seats in B.C. The Conservatives hold 22, of which 13 were won with more than half the ballots cast. For Byers’ strategy to work at all, the agreement would have to focus only on the seats the two opposition parties have the best chance of winning from the Conservatives. Because if the parties were to stand down in each other’s held seats, many would be at risk of falling to the Conservatives instead, undermining the whole point of the exercise.

Megapundit: Ottawa's accountant vs. Washington's poet

By selley - Friday, October 24, 2008 at 2:37 PM - 14 Comments

Must-reads: Colby Cosh on Obama’s geneaology; Dan Gardner takes on Margaret F***ing Atwood; Don Martin on Canadian asbestos; Rick Salutin on Stéphane Dion.

Get over it
Some pundits are turning their gaze to the future. Others can’t stop post-morteming the election.

The Calgary Herald‘s Don Martin understands just how impossible Canadian politicians feel it is to kill 700 jobs in a nation of 33 million people just to save a bunch of lives in the third world, but is baffled at “how Canada can argue that a commodity the government says is too dangerous to permit on domestic construction sites is okeedokee for a developing world where safety measures are far less stringent.” He speaks, naturally, of asbestos. And while he concedes a distinction must be drawn between “the old toxic fibre they’re extracting from office walls and the lower-health-risk asbestos they’re exporting as a cement additive,” he says scientists and doctors make a rather compelling case for caution. The least the government could do, he very reasonably suggests, is stop actively marketing the stuff and release the Health Canada-commissioned report on the subject that was delivered to them months ago. (The Post‘s editorial board and Terence Corcoran take the contrarian view on this.)

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe speaks to Michael Byers, who had his academic cap handed to him in Vancouver Centre by Hedy Fry (and Lorne Mayencourt, for that matter), about what he learned from life on the campaign trail. Among other things, he tells her, “I now realize the demands of political debating, how difficult it is to perform at that level. As an armchair quarterback, it’s easy to criticize and focus on weaknesses.” Interestingly enough, that’s something we’ve felt like saying to Mr. Byers ourselves on a few occasions…

Continue…

BTC: X-Challenge Part Two

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 12:26 AM - 7 Comments

The second debate of CBC’s unfortunately named experiment was broadcast tonight, this time on the environment. 

The standings going in:
Conservative 40, NDP 26, Liberal 20, Green 14

The standings 90 minutes later:
Green 47, Conservative 21, Liberal 19, NDP 13

Make of this what you will.

Megapundit: Inside the Jock Zone

By selley - Friday, August 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM - 0 Comments

Must-reads: John Robson on the Greyhound murder; Christie Blatchford on Adam van Koeverden; Rosie DiManno on the athletes’ village; Dan Gardner on our horrible future; Vaughn Palmer on the World Trade University; Lorne Gunter on the Wheat Board.

The federal miscellany
The Liberals are still broke, the Wheat Board is still a communist abomination and Stephen Harper is still tearing the country apart. On the bright side, TGIF!

Lorne Gunter says the Liberals “simply cannot afford to fight a general election”—a shocking revelation the Edmonton Journal quite understandably put in its headline—and as such will be forced to play “crutch to the Tories’ Tiny Tim” for the foreseeable future. The truth is revealed in paragraph 14, however, where Gunter pegs the likelihood of the Grits being able to afford an election campaign “without resorting to more bank loans” (our emphasis) as “highly unlikely.” So, there you have it: they’ll resort to more bank loans. Problem solved. Thanks for stopping by.

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe (who filed her wildly oversold assessment of Grit finance yesterday), handicaps the battle for Vancouver-Centre between lefty poli-sci professor Michael Byers and incumbent Hedy Fry, arguing it will be “one of the most compelling” races in the coming election (which will occur once the Liberals take out some more bank loans). Byers’ chosen issues: homelessness in his tiding, the “militarization” of the Arctic, shutting down private medical centres, “taking a break” from combat in Kandahar, big government solutions to climate change, and cruise ships “spew[ing] diesel fumes into Vancouver’s harbour.” Fry’s chosen issues, so far as we can tell: incumbency, not upsetting the applecart, and the benefits of the status quo.

Continue…

Khadr and the old democrats

By Paul Wells - Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM - 0 Comments

If I were a left-of-centre party desperately seeking concrete differences with the Liberals, I’d be awfully interested in the case of Omar Khadr, the former child soldier whose abuse at Guantanamo Bay has by now been amply documented.

The Harper government won’t lift a finger to repatriate him, a shirking of duty decried even in such occasionally friendly precincts as this week’s Maclean‘s editors’ page. (Harper campaigned on a promise that under him, Canada would have a foreign policy that would actually get noticed, and that’s certainly what he’s achieving with Khadr: Under this prime minister, Canada’s foreign policy is uniquely supine, a state of affairs that’s winning our country positively glowing coverage in Vietnam and Germany, just to name two.)

The Liberals are, of course, making a fuss about all this. But the problem for the Liberals is that when that video footage of Khadr’s Guantanamo interrogation was shot, Jean Chrétien was the prime minister of Canada. Defending the Liberals’ seriously late-breaking interest in the quality of treatment accorded Guantanamo prisoners is tricky, as Megapundit points out. This should, it seems to me, present an opportunity for the NDP, who could say — truthfully — “The Liberals let this happen and the Conservatives refuse to bring it to an end.”

The NDP’s hand would be strengthened, to be sure, if they had made a greater fuss about waterboarding, extraordinary rendition and the rest from the outset. But at least they have this fellow Michael Byers on board, who wrote a whole book about such matters.

Megapundit: Rebranding the NDP

By selley - Monday, July 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM - 0 Comments

WEEKEND ROUNDUP

Must-reads: Graham Thomson and Scott Taylor on Afghanistan; Dan Gardner on missile defence; George Jonas on the wrongfully convicted; Norman Spector on climate change politics.

Power to the people
On the end of cheap oil, the dawn of trans-Canadian hydroelectricity, the Green Shift, and that total hack, John Lennon.

In the Montreal Gazette, L. Ian MacDonald says inter-provincial electricity transmission is the “whole new game of Canadian federalism,” as Ontario—”we’re talking about 40 per cent of the Canadian economy here”—struggles to meet its electricity needs even while it still burns coal, and Quebec and Newfoundland ponder where best to direct their excess hydroelectric capacity. Except for Newfoundland’s bitterness over its disastrous arrangement to sell power to Hydro-Québec at 1969 prices, MacDonald says “selling to Ontario, through Quebec, [would make] the most sense.” And if anyone can soothe Danny Williams’ jangled nerves and bring him on board, he believes it’s Jean Charest. Included in the Premier’s limitless arsenal of talents, MacDonald opines, is that he’s “very good at relationships.”

Lorne Gunter renews his many objections to Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift in the National Post: federal revenues are only fat and happy during this “economic slouch” because of Albertan oil sales, thus it’s unfair “to make the West the bad guy”; Alberta and Saskatchewan families would suffer a disproportionate burden under the scheme, one that would dwarf the fiscal imbalance Dalton McGuinty’s constantly complaining about; and it’s not an environmental plan anyway, but, in the helpful words of Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff, “the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years.”

Continue…

GiornoWatch: All quiet on the GEDS front …

By kadyomalley - Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM - 0 Comments

… but that could just mean that it did not escape (low-level flunkie) notice that some of us spent the day  refreshing this page every ten minutes to see if any names had appeared – or disappeared. But according to the berryvine, the carnage at Langevin Block has begun. Annoyingly, that’s about as specific as it has gotten so far, at least as far as ITQ’s inbox.
Continue…

BTC: 'Complicit in the murder of thousands'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM - 0 Comments

As part of the Parliamentary process, the population is permitted to petition the House of Commons—formal, signed requests read into the record by MPs during time allotted most days for such presentations. For those of you so interested, the copious rules pertaining to the petitioning process are printed online.

Anyway. This is perhaps not terribly exciting stuff. Checking Hansard for the last Thursday before Parliament adjourned in June, I see that petitions were presented on Darfur and the environment and gas prices and the CBC radio orchestra.

But on June 10, the NDP’s Libby Davies rose with this. Continue…

Megapundit: It was war for oil after all!

By selley - Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 12:58 PM - 0 Comments

Must-reads: Henry Aubin and Margaret Wente on Henry Morgentaler; Gary Mason on Michael Byers.

Shouting into the wind
The politicians have fled Ottawa, but the opinions remain.

As soon as the next American president is inaugurated, the Toronto Star‘s James Travers says the Canadian government should be full steam ahead encouraging Washington “to adjust its current muscular enforcement model and return to the risk management approach”—that’s Traversian for loosening up on border security—and to “expand the NAFTA platform to open other markets.” Unfortunately, he notes, while John McCain is the presidential candidate more likely to be open to such discussions, cozying up to a Republican is a politically risky move. (And it’s official, we’re officially sick to death of this argument. Canadians are not going to reject border security negotiations because the man in the White House has elephant cufflinks.)

The Vancouver Sun‘s Barbara Yaffe doesn’t have an awful lot that’s new to say about Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, but fundamentally she believes the backlash is worth the risk for a party that was desperate “to grab the spotlight on a prominent policy issue.” (Previous attempts, she notes—notably Stéphane Dion’s ironclad insistence on a February 2009 pullout from Afghanistan—didn’t end so well.) But she notes that one of the most trenchant criticisms of the Liberal plan, especially given the idea that it’s such sound policy, is the fact that it includes “poverty reduction measures.” One might reasonably ask: Is this meant to fight climate change after all? Or is it “a vehicle to steal votes from other left-wing parties”?

Continue…

BTC: 'It wouldn't be the end of the world'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM - 0 Comments

As Kady reports, UBC’s Michael Byers is aiming to be the next NDP candidate in Vancouver Centre. And as Paul coyly notes, the professor once said something rather surprising about the threat of a terrorist attack on Toronto.

Intrigued by Paul’s insinuation but not recalling the comments in question, I sought clarification from a colleague. He (esteemed bureau chief John Geddes) was nice enough to find a transcript of Mr. Byers’ appearance on CBC’s At Issue panel on June 8, 2006. The discussion focused on the arrest of the so-called Toronto 18. Here’s the relevant portion (including immediate rebuttal from a pre-Maclean’s Andrew Coyne). Continue…

On the terrifying rise of my arch-enemy Michael Byers

By Paul Wells - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM - 0 Comments

ITQ brings the big news that Michael Byers will seek the federal NDP nomination in Hedy Fry’s riding. (Why ‘seek,’ by the way? Because the NDP leaves selection of candidates entirely up to local riding associations, and the leader is very reluctant even to state a local preference. This has on occasion led to hurt feelings among candidates-for-candidacies who thought they could rely on the leader’s support. Anyone who wants to run against Byers is free to take a shot, but it’s clear the NDP is excited that Byers wants to run for them.)

Anyway, at the not-inconsiderable risk of being self-indulgent, this gives me the excuse I need to address what Byers seems to regard as my implacable vendetta against him. Continue…

Wait, there are rumours circulating that have nothing to do with Guy Giorno and the coming purge at PMO?

By kadyomalley - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM - 0 Comments

Huh.

And yes, it’s true: Michael Byers is planning to run for the federal NDP nomination in Vancouver Centre, currently held by Hedy Fry. From an email he sent out earlier today:
Continue…

BTC: Say goodnight, Boo Boo

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM - 0 Comments

(This post will be updated below. Last updated at 2:40am.)

The popular guess among the dozen or so reporters gathered in the foyer had Maxime Bernier as good as gone. Only one member of the press gallery foresaw something less interesting to come. And, to be fair, on most matters of Hill anticipation, he probably would’ve been guessing right.

But here came the Prime Minister, walking a bit slow and looking a bit glum. (Were those tears in his eyes?) A small gaggle of Conservative MPs lurked in the shadows, apparently unaware of what was to come. So too loitered a few opposition members, the House having just voted on some matter or another. And, surely, as the Prime Minister arrived at the mic stand, those reporters nominated to ask questions—two English, two French—prayed their Bernier-centric preparations would prove worthwhile.

And so they did. Bernier had resigned. Something about leaving some top secret documents where they shouldn’t have been left. A very grave error, the Prime Minister said. “A failure to uphold accepted standards on government documents,” he explained, managing to make it seem Mr. Bernier had merely failed to fill out the proper form in registering for some health insurance. Continue…