The redacted Colvin memos (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM - 5 Comments

The Star reports that it was Peter Tinsley, commissioner of the Military Police Complaints Commission, who allowed today’s release after selective leaks elsewhere. The NDP’s Paul Dewar says that what has been redacted in one report is a general reference to the possibility of “torture” and other abuses.

“By redacting just that one sentence, the government was able to cover up knowledge of extrajudicial killings and torture in Afghanistan,” Dewar said, citing this as an example of overzealous censorship. ”This is precisely why Canadians can’t trust any document with redactions from this government.”

The Commons: 'If it has been doing such a good job, what does it have to hide?'

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM - 11 Comments

The Scene. From his seat, John Baird adjusted his tie and buttoned his jacket before Michael Ignatieff had even begun to speak. Though in Toronto hours earlier for an announcement, the Transport Minister had apparently rushed back to the capital so that he might pronounce on the government’s behalf on a file for which he has no authority.

Mr. Ignatieff finished asking when the government would release all documents relevant to the handling of detainees in Afghanistan and it was then Mr. Baird’s place to stand, his jacket conveniently prebuttoned, to explain how this was really a question about Supporting The Troops.

“Mr. Speaker, the government has been entirely clear. We will continue to provide all legally available information,” he said, employing a phrase that continues to escape all definition. “There are longstanding practices not just of this government but of other governments and even mandatory legal requirements that we will continue to follow. It is a responsibility that those of us on this side of the House take seriously because the number one priority must be the safety and the security of men and women in uniform.”

Having apparently learned a thing or two from the government’s display yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff stood here and leaned forward to demonstrate that he too could refer favourably to a general. “Mr. Speaker, last week in his testimony General Gauthier said that he hoped Parliament would have access to the documents on this question. It still has not happened,” he reported. “After weeks of withholding evidence, how are Canadians supposed to believe now that the government will provide full and uncensored documents to the parliamentary committee so that it can get at the truth of this matter?”

Mr. Baird took the opportunity to pronounce shame on Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic. Mr. Dosanjh’s crime? Apparently repeating a newspaper columnist’s negative assessment of the testimony provided last week by various Canadian generals. It is unclear under which article of the Geneva Conventions this particular sin would fall. Continue…

Black out

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 1:17 AM - 39 Comments

The Globe’s Paul Koring reviews 80 documents provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission and finds them an unsatisfying read.

The heavily redacted documents, obtained by The Globe and Mail, underscore the sweeping nature of the government’s efforts to keep the documentary record from the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is attempting to conduct an inquiry into allegations that Canada knowingly transferred prisoners to likely torturers in Afghanistan…

In the material delivered to the MPCC, government blackouts render unreadable many of the documents, some drafted by Mr. Colvin. The sweeping redactions were imposed even though everyone who works with or serves on the MPCC must have at least “secret” clearance and all of the senior investigators, as well as the panelists who would conduct the inquiry, have the highest security clearances…

Some documents dating back to spring of 2006, a full year before ministers and senior officers said they first heard of abuse allegations, are entirely blacked out. Others have whole sections censored.

What do we know for now?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 27, 2009 at 9:30 AM - 2 Comments

In lieu of Richard Colvin’s memos, there is, again, Richard Colvin’s affidavit and what he says there about those memos. In that affidavit, filed for the Military Police Complaints Commission, Colvin describes sending seven memos before the Globe’s report of April 23, 2007.

Here are the dates and tracking numbers for each of those, with whatever description Colvin has provided of the content. Continue…

The Commons: 'Let us get beyond the rhetorical flourish'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM - 34 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae stood and reviewed the allegations of obstruction, of troubles faced by the Military Police Complaints Commission and Richard Colvin. “How is all this compatible,” he wondered aloud, “with the pursuit of the truth about allegations of abuse in Afghan prisons?”

With the Prime Minister away, this seemed an appropriate time for Peter MacKay to stand and table the government’s response. Instead, here came John Baird, his relevance to this particular file unclear, professing outrage at the latest attempt of the Liberal party—a letter referencing the government’s handling of Afghan detainees—to garner funds from its supporters. ”It is unwarranted,” he said, accusing the Liberals of somehow impugning the men and women of the Canadian Forces, “it is appalling and it is absolutely shameful.”

These matters surely can be tricky. Given continued concerns over a recent Conservative mailout, one wonders whether we might be nearing the day when we’d all be better off with a complete and total ban on political party’s promoting themselves at all.

There was more sparring on this between Messrs Rae and Baird before Mr. Rae attempted to identify an indisputable fact.

“Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that partially and heavily blacked-out documents with key information missing are not disclosure. Non-answers in the House are not disclosure. Rhetorical personal attacks such as the minister himself has just indulged in are not disclosure and do not amount to disclosure,” he offered. “We need to get at the truth. Why is the government afraid of a public inquiry to get at the truth? What is it about the truth that the government is afraid of?”

Continue…

'I’m not getting into the personality, the professionalism'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 2:02 PM - 20 Comments

Peter MacKay maintains he never saw Richard Colvin’s reports, only that he received briefings to which there were attachments of which Mr. Colvin was a contributor. A month ago, for the record, Mr. MacKay said he did not heard the name “Richard Colvin” until the diplomat became involved in the Military Police Complaints Commission hearings.

'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.

'It would seem that some of the key lessons of the Somalia experience … have not been learned'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM - 5 Comments

Lost somewhat in all the discussion of Richard Colvin’s testimony, is the statement of Peter Tinsley, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, that immediately followed Colvin’s appearance.

Here is that statement. Continue…

'I have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM - 0 Comments

Still awaiting the full transcript of Richard Colvin’s opening statement at committee yesterday (it should, hopefully, be available at some point this afternoon). In the mean time, the Star has made available the affidavit he provided to the Military Police Complaints Commission.

Turnabout, fair play, etc.

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 26, 2009 at 12:06 PM - 11 Comments

Peter MacKay, responding to opposition questions, October 19. I will note that when it comes to Bloc members, I wish they would spend just as much time standing up and protecting the interests of Canadian soldiers as they do for the vigour they seem to have for Taliban prisoners … The member has now asked, I believe, nine or ten questions on the Military Police Complaints Commission. I only wish he would bring that type of enthusiasm to support the men and women of the Canadian Forces.

Winnipeg Free Press, yesterday. A former member of Canada’s military says if Prime Minister Stephen Harper truly supports his troops, he’d change his government’s stance on a private member’s bill to improve the pension plans of the military and RCMP. Fred Newton, a 20-year veteran of the military in the communications branch, is one of hundreds of former military and RCMP officers pushing the Conservatives to help pass Bill C-201, a private member’s bill from NDP MP Peter Stoffer … ”You see Prime Minister Harper all the time saying we’ve got to support our troops and then (the Conservatives) go and turn around and vote against this,” said Newton. “It’s hypocritical.”

Don't look away (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 1:17 AM - 15 Comments

Global National reports that Rick Hillier was aware of Richard Colvin’s reports on the treatment of detainees in Afghan prisons.

According to insiders, it turns out Ottawa was indeed aware of reports from a senior Canadian diplomat, which repeatedly warned that Afghan detainees turned over to local authorities risked being tortured. Global National has learned from senior sources within the federal government and the Canadian military, that diplomat Richard Colvin’s warnings reached Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff at the time…

Canada’s current top soldier says he’s working to get to the bottom of what happened to Colvin’s reports. Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, said Friday he did not yet know where the diplomat’s reports landed back in Ottawa, who read them, and what was done with the information.

Will we ever know what happened in Afghanistan? (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM - 3 Comments

Peter MacKay, October 8. “Mr. Speaker, despite the wild-eyed, woolly-headed allegations of the not-so-New Democratic Party, we are co-operating with this commission. We have provided evidence and witnesses. We have complied with the Federal Court’s ruling, which confirmed the mandate of the Military Police Complaints Commission. We have co-operated at every stage. We intend this commission to continue to do its important work. I wish the hon. member would stop trying to undermine and confuse Canadians with allegations that in fact impugn the work of the Canadian Forces.”

CTV, this morning. Freya Kristjanson told Canada AM on Thursday that while the government has said it’s cooperating with the commission, it has not turned in any documents since March, 2008. ”This commission has not received a single new document despite repeated assurances that the government would be producing the documents both in the House and by their lawyers directly to the commission,” she said in an interview from Ottawa. “The government has simply failed to deliver any documents. If the government cooperates with a body established by parliament within its mandate and gives the commission documents and access to witnesses then Canadians will know what happened,” she added.

Will we ever know what happened in Afghanistan?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM - 5 Comments

Canadian Press chronicles the latest development—allegations of witness intimidation—in the Military Police Complaints Commission’s attempt to investigate allegations of torture in Afghanistan and what the Canadian military knew, or should have known, about it.

Hearings were halted last week amid a dispute over the inquiry’s jurisdiction. The Federal Court has already ruled to limit its scope. The chairman of the commission has been told he’ll be reassigned on Dec. 11, likely before the commission has finished its investigation, despite opposition demands that his term be extended. Citing national security, the Justice Department has advised that some witnesses will not be allowed to testify fully, including Richard Colvin, who claims to have “personal knowledge” of what military police knew or could have known.

The Liberals are pursuing a parliamentary probe of the issue, while the NDP wants the chairman and Mr. Colvin to testify before a Parliamentary committee.

The judicial branch

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 12:15 AM - 3 Comments

First, Robert Allen Smith. Then, Omar Khadr. Now, the Military Police Complaints Commission.

And coming soon, In-and-Out.

The Commons: A cold and miserable day

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM - 44 Comments

The Prime Minister arrived promptly at 9:30am. Stepping out of the car, he waved to the reporters assembled 70 metres away and then strode through the back door of Rideau Hall. His staff followed behind.

Half a dozen news trucks idled in the Governor-General’s driveway. A dozen television cameras lined up by the fountain, aimed at her front door. Madame Jean’s staff had set out coffee and, though lukewarm, it eventually became necessary.

Thus, the wait began. Two and a half hours of chilly anticipation.

***

So how did we get here? The answer depends on your perspective. Continue…