The work wasn’t done

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 24, 2011 at 8:39 AM - 0 Comments

While the Prime Minister’s Office apparently declines to say whether the opposition leaders were asked if they wished to proceed with the detainee document review, it is clear the panel of judges was not done reviewing some of the material—including documents identified by the government as being subject to cabinet confidence.

Parliament’s dissolution meant that the judges no longer had any committee of MPs to turn to for input. Post-election, the judges were looking to discuss their findings with a renewed committee of MPs, but no such committee was formed. “We were advised by the government that it is unlikely that the [committee] will be renewed,” the judges wrote in their June 15 letter.

So they handed over what they had done and left some work dangling – including documents over which the government had claimed absolute secrecy. “We did not undertake a review of the government’s claims of cabinet confidence since we received confirmation of these claims only before Parliament was dissolved,” the judges wrote. “Nor did we complete our review of all of the government’s claims of solicitor-client privilege.”

Greg Weston reviews how we got here.

The Commons: Two words to say so much

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. John Baird seemed to stumble before catching himself.

“Mr. Speaker, our government is, and has always been,” he said this afternoon in response to a question from the NDP side, “committed to handling Afghan… Taliban prisoners in accordance with our international obligations.”

Taliban prisoners is indeed the preferred honorific. And four years after the treatment of those transferred to Afghan authorities by the Canadian Forces became a matter of public concern—four years after allegations that Canadian-transferred detainees had been punched, choked, whipped and electrocuted by Afghan officials—much of the government’s response to so many questions of human rights, war, torture and parliamentary privilege would seem to involve this two-word phrase.

Continue…

‘Nothing changes’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 1:20 PM - 0 Comments

Graeme Smith talks to the director of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Are the security forces still beating people and electrocuting people?

Generally, in the various forces, it’s still a bad situation with the prisoners. One change is that before they were abusing people in front of us, and now they are doing it in hidden places.

Reading the documents: DFAIT 10

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 11:45 AM - 0 Comments

The documents tabled today can be viewed in their entirety here. Herein, a series of posts on some of the noteworthy files and disclosures contained therein.

Included in yesterday’s release is a file marked DFAIT 10. Dated from November 2007, it is a memo to the Foreign Affairs Minister (Lawrence Cannon at the time) about the impending release of government documents as part of the legal case brought by Amnesty International and the BC Civil Liberties Association. Specifically, the memo attempts to address what will be disclosed as a result and what “communications considerations” should be undertaken.

The evidence contained in the documents was summarized for the minister as follows (the unredacted portion reprinted here in square brackets).

The material to be released is extensive. Cumulatively the documents leave one with the impression of [flawed Afghan judicial system and of detention facilities that fall well below UN standards]. In addition, the assembled material may seem to suggest that Government of Canada messaging on the detainees issues for the last twelve months has been out of sync with reporting from the field (DND, CSC and DFAIT). This will present significant political and communications challenges.

Tortured math

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM - 0 Comments

When Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird turned up at the podium yesterday afternoon, he announced as follows.

Just now, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I tabled documents relating to Canadian-transferred Taliban prisoners reviewed as part of the Ad Hoc Committee process in the last Parliament.  This concludes that process which has cost Canadian taxpayers over $12 million.

As it turns out, the cost for the parliamentary review—in which documents were reviewed by an ad hoc committee of MPs and a panel of former judges—was something closer to $4.5 million.

Baird said the process cost $12 million, but a government official later admitted that amount includes the cost of producing and redacting documents for two proceedings at the Military Police Complaints Commission. The commission spent months conducting hearings on a complaint by Amnesty International. The cost to find and redact documents was $10 million, of which $7.5 million is due to the commission hearings, Baird spokesman Chris Day wrote in an email. ”The remaining $2 [million] relate to remuneration and disbursements associated with the work of the panel,” he wrote.

The early reviews

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 8:51 AM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Press reviews some of what was disclosed in yesterday’s document release.

— Various 2007 reports filed by Canadian officials in Afghanistan who interviewed detainees transferred by Canadian Forces noted allegations of beatings, sleep deprivation and verbal abuse;

— Human rights observers were denied access at least five times that year to Kandahar facilities run by the notorious National Directorate of Security

More from Postmedia, the Globe, Star and CBC.

Reading the documents

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM - 0 Comments

The documents tabled today can be viewed in their entirety here. Some of these memos appear to have been made public previously, but starting here, a series of posts on some of the noteworthy files and disclosures contained therein.

Files POA 0424 through POA 0437—see the second batch of files—appear to contain memos drafted by Richard Colvin between June 2, 2006 and April 20, 2007. These are memos would have been filed before the Globe and Mail’s first major story on the handling of detainees was published on April 23, 2007.

The panel of arbiters has unredacted references to Governor Asadullah Khalid in POA 0433 and POA 0434. (References to Governor Khalid are also revealed in POA 0148, dated April 28, 2007.)

In POA 0437, a reference to “suspicions of maltreatment by the NDS” has been disclosed.

POA 0439 through POA 0464 contain memos that followed the Globe’s report. References to Governor Khalid have been unredacted in POA 0454 and POA 0455.

POA 0465 is Mr. Colvin’s final report on the conclusion of his 18 months in Afghanistan.

‘The likelihood was very high’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 6:42 PM - 0 Comments

Stephane Dion, the Liberal MP on the ad hoc committee, offers his take on what he saw in the documents.

Canadian troops had always acted professionally, Dion said, but the government had failed to track the detainees it was transferring. When it finally did send inspectors to check on the detainees, the inspections were inadequate — at times even erratic, he said. ”They were not sufficient to really protect these hundreds of people,” Dion said.

Most concerning to him was the fact that Canadian officials kept transferring troops to Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security despite having concerns about its reputation for abuse. ”It is very troubling that there is a case — not many cases but one case — where an individual has been arrested by us and . . . transferred to NDS for future questioning,” Dion said. “I checked to find out what we may know of this individual and I found out . . . (that) the interrogation by the NDS, gave an allegation by this individual of abuse — that he has been slapped in the face many times and threatened to be killed. Elsewhere, we find out that the Canadian officials confirm that we do not check how the NDS do its questioning,” the former Liberal leader added.

The documents

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM - 0 Comments

The 4,000 pages of detainee documents have now been released to reporters.

The first batch (99 files via Scribd) is available here.

The second batch (274 files via Google Docs) is available here.

‘This concludes the work of the ad hoc committee’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 4:13 PM - 0 Comments

The official release from Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird on the tabling of documents related to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan. In speaking with reporters as well he left the distinct impression that the government is not interested in reinstating the review process.

“The documents tabled today show what our government has been telling Canadians all along,” said Minister Baird. “Canada is committed to upholding our international obligations, including the handling and transfer of Taliban prisoners in full accordance with our international obligations.”

All of the documents that were prioritized by the ad hoc committee of parliamentarians and sent to the Panel of Arbiters for decisions on redactions have now been released … After 12 months and over $12 million, no credible allegations against Canadian Armed Forces members or Canadian officials were found. The vast majority of redactions were left intact by the Panel of Arbiters. This concludes the process.

Where are the documents? (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM - 0 Comments

Documents related to the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan and the report of the panel of arbiters will be tabled in the House shortly after Question Period today. Ministers John Baird and Peter MacKay are then to deliver remarks to the media and reporters have been summoned to the Foreign Affairs building for a briefing at 4pm. Stephane Dion, the Liberal member of the parliamentary review committee, has his own media availability scheduled for 4pm as well.

Ahead of this afternoon’s disclosures, whatever they may be, Mr. Dion has already raised one concern with the process.

He added, however, that he is very concerned about how the government has already received the report from the panel, giving it ample time to prepare a communications plan. He said opposition MPs won’t see the report until several hours before it is publicly tabled in the Commons Wednesday afternoon. “It was not a report that was supposed to be the property of the government,” Mr. Dion said.

For the story of how we got to this point, including many of the documents already made publicly available, feel free to consult the Colvin Encyclopedia.

Where are the documents? (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 20, 2011 at 1:39 PM - 9 Comments

Sources tell the Sun that the first disclosures from the Afghan detainee document review committee will be released Wednesday.

If this does indeed come to pass, the next question will be whether the review committee will be reinstated. It was established with the agreement of the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc Quebecois. I’ve asked both the Conservative and Liberal sides whether they are respectively interested in restarting the process, but both have so far avoided answering the question directly.

Rights and democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM - 41 Comments

Speaking at this weekend’s Conservative convention, Jason Kenney explains the Conservative ethos.

“We don’t depend on the bloated bureaucracies of the nanny state; we thrive on our freedom and are upheld by the law,” he said. “We don’t assume that history began in the Summer of Love; we honour a tradition reaching back to the Magna Carta … Our adversaries were focused on the obsessions of the chattering classes – like Taliban prisoners – rather than the practical bread-and-butter concerns of hard-working families.”

Though neither are as old as the Magna Carta (established in 1215), both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948) and the Geneva Conventions (agreed to in 1949) predate the Summer of Love (1967).

Article 39 of the Magna Carta is translated as follows. Continue…

The first test of the new Parliament

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM - 14 Comments

After announcing yesterday that Parliament will resume business on June 2, John Baird was asked about the state of the Afghan detainee document review. He responded as follows.

There’s a good number that, I understand, should be able to be tabled in short order. That should proceed. Obviously the agreement that we had in place was with the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberal party. Obviously the two Bloc members were defeated and there’s only one of the Liberals so that’ll be something that, as government House leader, working with the Minister of Justice, we’ll have to discuss.

See previously: The detained documents

The detained documents

By Philippe Gohier - Friday, May 6, 2011 at 5:28 PM - 35 Comments

For 36 hours or so last month there was some interest in the review of documents related to the detention and transfer of detainees in Afghanistan. In short, the judges responsible for determining—after investigation by the MPs on the review committee—what could be publicly released decided nothing would be released while Parliament was dissolved. The Conservative side said it supported the release of documents and Michael Ignatieff called for something to be done to make that possible, but apparently nothing ever came of it.

On that note, I queried the Prime Minister’s Office yesterday. Those questions and a spokesman’s answers were as follows. Continue…

Did torture nab bin Laden?

By Paul Wells - Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM - 14 Comments

No.

ICC may investigate Canada’s handling of Afghan detainees

By macleans.ca - Friday, April 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM - 28 Comments

A new documentary is making waves for an interview with the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, who has indicated that possible war crimes charges could be brought against Canada. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told filmmaker Barry Stevens that the ICC will have to check whether Canadian courts are looking into its military’s handling of Afghan detainees—if not, the ICC will have to step in. If there is evidence that crimes were committed, the Toronto Star reports, Canadian officials are not immune to prosecution. “We’ll check if there are crimes and also we’ll check if a Canadian judge is doing a case or not,” said Moreno-Ocampo. “If they don’t, the court has to intervene. That’s the rule, that’s the system, one standard for everyone.” He could not be reached for further comment.

Toronto Star

The documents detained

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM - 37 Comments

A few weeks after some degree of confusion on this matter was noted, the two judges reviewing documents related to the detention and transfer of detainees in Afghanistan to determine how information will be publicly disclosed have apparently decided that nothing can be released until Parliament reconvenes. The judges wrote to the Conservative, Liberal and Bloc leaders today to explain their current dilemma and that letter can be viewed here.

Mr. Ignatieff’s office has issued a statement calling on the judges’ report to be released and seeking, if necessary, an amendment to the memorandum of understanding to allow for public disclosure as soon as possible. The Conservatives have followed with a statement from Laurie Hawn, the Conservative representative on the committee, encouraging disclosure.

Full statements after the jump.

Continue…

What they should have known

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 9:47 AM - 15 Comments

The Harper government is once more seeking to limit the purview of the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The federal government already argued successfully in 2009 that the findings should be limited to what military cops knew or could be reasonably expected to know, but now Ottawa is challenging the definition of what the military police should have known. The federal government wants to narrow the definition so that it includes only information the military police would have physically possessed — such as being copied on an email — instead of what they may have been able to find out by asking questions.

A mid-April surprise?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM - 9 Comments

Liberal Dominic LeBlanc says the detainee document review committee will soon be ready to release documents.

“It is our information the process is on track to release a substantial amount of information within the next couple of weeks,” Liberal defence critic MP Dominic LeBlanc, who was also part of the negotiation team with the other parties, told the Toronto Star Thursday.

The NDP’s Jack Harris says an election will make this impossible, but it’s actually not clear to me at the moment, from my rereading of the memorandum of understanding, what the precise mechanism is for the public release of information. Here, for instance, is Clause 6. Continue…

An ultimatum

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 10:44 AM - 12 Comments

Gilles Duceppe says if the Afghan detainee document review committee doesn’t produce disclosures in the next six weeks, the Bloc will pull out.

“This delay makes no sense, because we were told that in January it would be done,” Duceppe told the French newspaper La Presse. ”Now there is a deadline.”

Detained and transferred

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 7, 2011 at 3:49 PM - 3 Comments

On Friday, the Defence Department released statistics on the number of individuals detained and transferred during operations in Afghanistan in 2009. The year set a new high mark for the number of those detained, but only 40% of those individuals were transferred.

In 2009, the CF detained 225 individuals. One (1) individual detained in 2008 remained in custody into 2009, bringing the total of detained individuals in 2009 to 226. Of the 226, 126 were released by the CF, while 92 were transferred. One (1) individual died of wounds as a result of injuries suffered on the battlefield. The individual passed away at the Role 3 hospital while receiving medical care. Seven (7) individuals were detained near the close of 2009 but remained in CF custody until 2010.

'This is our final opportunity to have this issue taken seriously'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 10:35 AM - 11 Comments

Murray Brewster covers the last day of hearings at the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The issue of the treatment of Afghan prisoners has fallen off the political map, something Neve lamented.”We have tried so many different ways to have that issue taken seriously,” he said Wednesday just before the hearings concluded.

Gilles Duceppe said in December that the committee of MPs charged with reviewing documents related to the treatment of detainees would have something to release in January. After QP on Tuesday, he was reminded of that. Continue…

'The process is a serious one'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 10, 2010 at 11:29 AM - 46 Comments

From yesterday’s scrums after QP, here is Liberal defence critic Dominic LeBlanc’s response to the NDP’s impatience.

My understanding is that the process is going quite well. Mr. Dion and others don’t identify any disruptions in the process. The NDP were not serious from the beginning in finding a way to make a process work. They sabotaged the discussions and walked out prematurely as they had always planned to do. So this is as predictable as their publicity stunt around the discussions with the government. I think it is a little disingenuous to pretend that former Supreme Court justices and senior judges would somehow be involved in a sham process and as a front for some government obstruction. My understand is that the process is a serious one and is proceeding well and I’m quite confident that we will see some documents released very soon.

Separately, Gilles Duceppe said there would be documents made public in January.