'Voiced with clarity'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, August 20, 2010 at 4:53 PM - 0 Comments

Gen. Walter Natynczyk comments on Col. Pat Stogran’s previously stated concerns.

“He has certainly voiced with clarity what the issues are,” said Natynczyk, who held the news conference with his Dutch counterpart, Gen. Peter Van Uhm, who has been on an official visit to Canada…

Natynczyk also encouraged soldiers to speak out, whether at parliamentary committees, to the media or in public, about the issues they face and the needs they have, because every soldier is different. ”Everyone’s had a different war, a different fight. Their family circumstances are different,” he said. “I think the bottom line is we can’t do enough for our soldiers, our wounded soldiers.”

And now, some answers?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM - 7 Comments

The Board of Inquiry report into the events of June 14, 2006 “detainee incident” is due to be released this afternoon.

The rather relevant background to this is sketched out here.

An exchange of letters

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM - 7 Comments

Two weeks ago, Gen. Walter Natynczyk wrote to the Afghanistan committee in response to the testimony of Malgarai Ahmadshah. In that letter, he stated that “Canadian Forces do not transfer individuals for the purposes of gathering information.” This caught the interest of the NDP’s Paul Dewar and Jack Harris, who wrote Natynczyk seeking an explanation as to how this could be squared with an October 2007 transfer report.

Their letter has received a response from Rear-Admiral R.A. Davidson and Messrs Dewar and Harris wrote back with a missive yesterday, the text of which is below. Continue…

While we wait

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 30, 2010 at 2:23 PM - 1 Comment

A former diplomat told the Afghanistan committee this week that the first officials heard of specific allegations of torture was when the Globe and Mail reported as much in April 2007.

A military official told the Military Police Complaints Commission that documents related to the handling of detainees are being stored in a shipping container in Afghanistan and may take years to locate.

And, amid new testimony gathered by the Canadian Press, the Canadian Forces is investigating whether soldiers killed an unarmed teenager—an incident raised two weeks ago during testimony at the Afghanistan committee.

Agreement and disagreement

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 30, 2010 at 11:16 AM - 31 Comments

The opposition parties aren’t agreed as to whether Justice Frank Iacobucci, or seemingly any independent advisor or arbiter, should have a role in Parliament’s review of detainee documents. Meanwhile, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of the defence staff and a man the Defence Minister seems to trust, is asked if he’s worried about detainee documents being reviewed.

CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, “Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?”

Natynczyk responded: “Not at all, not at all.”

'Further questioning'

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 7:00 PM - 13 Comments

In his letter to the Afghanistan committee late last week, Gen. Walter Natynczyk wrote that “Canadian Forces do not transfer individuals for the purposes of gathering information.” In a letter sent today, the NDP’s Paul Dewar and Jack Harris have asked Gen. Natynczyk to clarify this point.

Specifically, Messrs. Dewar and Harris want to know how to square the general’s statement with an October 2007 document they’ve obtained. The document is described as a transfer report and it reads, in part:

“During the interview conducted, it is believe (sic) that all the detainees were deceptive and they have a better knowledge on TB (Taliban) activity in their area. Based upon the above, it is recommended that [names of detainees] be transferred to the National Directorate of Security (NOS) for further questioning”.

The NDP is not making said document public as yet. But Mr. Dewar did raise it during committee hearings last week. He presented it to Malgarai Ahmadshah, a former translator for the Canadian Forces, and Mr. Ahmadshah explained the document as follows. Continue…

The past few days in things that are somewhat more consequential

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 19, 2010 at 12:35 PM - 30 Comments

Gen. Walter Natynczyk has written to the special committee on Afghanistan to outline the military’s account of one of the events referenced last week by Malgarai Ahmadshah.

Meanwhile, the Hill Times reports that the Speaker is set to rule this week on the question of privilege raised by opposition members in regards to the House demand that the government produce all documents related to Afghan detainees.

And the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission reports that Canada turned over 163 prisoners last year—a figure the Canadian government has not released on the grounds of operational security.

'We take all allegations seriously'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM - 2 Comments

Gen. Walter Natynczyk’s statement on yesterday’s testimony at the special committee on Afghanistan.

Recent public comments have made grave accusations against the men and women of the Canadian Forces. As Chief of the Defence Staff, I can assure all Canadians that we take all allegations seriously and will investigate new allegations appropriately.

The Canadian Forces have always been and remain committed to ensuring that detainees are handled and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law. Whenever there have been specific allegations of ill treatment, the Canadian Forces have not hesitated to act.

The Canadian Forces hold themselves to the highest level of professional conduct and have conducted themselves with bravery and compassion. We are committed to ensuring detainees are handled and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law.

Continue…

Redacted, unredacted, reredacted

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 1, 2010 at 5:23 PM - 8 Comments

As I have detailed at some length, there exists a 2006 field report that references the abuse of a detainee transfered by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities.

When the field report was released in 2007, as part of a court proceeding, the reference to “assault” was redacted. You can view that version here.

When the field report was brought to the attention of General Walter Natynczyk last December, the general released the field report without redacting the reference to “assault.” You can view that version of the field report here.

The field report is included in the documents tabled by the government today. The reference to “assault” is now, once more, redacted. You can view this version of the field report here, at page six of that file.

National security v. Public interest

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 1:16 AM - 26 Comments

Last week, after receiving this response, I asked the Justice Department if it might provide specific answers to questions asked about the redaction of a 2006 field report that referenced abuse of a detainee in Afghanistan. Yesterday afternoon, after further prodding, an e-mail arrived.

The response provided last week stands.

So it seems that, given two months to explain itself, the best the government can offer is a general statement of its policy in this regard.

That would seem to invite, perhaps even encourage, us to imagine for ourselves how the government has applied its policy. So here goes. Continue…

The pivotal paperwork (VI)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM - 14 Comments

Two months after the government was first asked to explain why a reference to abuse in a 2006 field report was redacted in 2007, but released uncensored in 2009, the questions having been put to three different departments, an answer, of sorts, arrives from the Justice Department.

Those questions, for the record, were as follows: In regards to the redaction noted below, who oversaw, ordered or made that redaction? On what grounds was that reference to abuse redacted? Did those grounds no longer apply when Gen. Natynczyk disclosed the reference to abuse last week?

I reprint the response received this morning here in its entirety. Continue…

The pivotal paperwork (V)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 12:26 PM - 11 Comments

For the record, these questions remain unanswered. At last report, the buck was resting with the Justice department.

In the mean time, the Vice Chief of Defence Staff has convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate “the specific details of the incident of 14 June 2006″ as well as “the circumstances surrounding the 14 June 2006 incident and the subsequent passage of this information up the chain of command.” The BOI’s report is due February 12.

The pivotal paperwork (IV)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM - 13 Comments

After a week without explanation as to why a reference to abuse was redacted from that 2006 field report when it was originally released in 2007, three specific questions were registered last Friday with the offices of Defence Minister Peter MacKay and General Walter Natynczyk.

In regards to the redaction noted below, who oversaw, ordered or made that redaction? On what grounds was that reference to abuse redacted? Did those grounds no longer apply when Gen. Natynczyk disclosed the reference to abuse last week?

Minister MacKay’s office forwarded those questions to the Justice Department, the department responsible for overseeing redactions. No response has yet been received, but it will be posted here when it is.

The pivotal paperwork (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM - 2 Comments

Still pursuing an answer from National Defence for the redacted reference to abuse in that 2006 field report. In the meantime, the Liberals are using that document to question the claim to national security.

“Here we had two versions of the same document written by an unidentified sergeant – but the version redacted by the Conservatives scrubbed out the critical piece of information that Afghan National Police were known to have assaulted detainees ‘in the past,’” said Mr. Dosanjh.

“Stating that the ANP had previously assaulted detainees is not a threat to our national security, so why should we trust the government to redact any documents when it’s clear that what they’re going to delete has nothing to do with national security?”

(Reminder: Tomorrow at 1pm, I’ll be chatting about the year in Parliament.)

'I haven't followed it'

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM - 111 Comments

Rick Hillier declines to comment on this week’s events.

Rick Hillier, formerly Canada’s top soldier, isn’t commenting about the recent revelations that Canadian-captured prisoners transferred to Afghan authorities were later tortured.

“I haven’t followed it,” Mr. Hillier said Friday in Halifax. ”I’m really not even in the mood or the ability to comment upon it, at this point, because I have not followed it in detail.”

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and General Walter Natynczyk have been called to appear again before the special committee on Afghanistan. The chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission offers a warning as he departs. In a letter to the Citizen, the former ambassador to Venezuela urges everyone to move on. In a separate letter to the paper, the former ambassador to Brazil explains why he chose not to sign on with other former diplomats in support of Richard Colvin.

The pivotal paperwork (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM - 26 Comments

The most recent word, received just now from an official at National Defence, is that a response to the question raised yesterday is still being sought.

To recap, the 2006 field report cited by General Walter Natynczyk this week read, in part, “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the ANP did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition.”

When the same field report was released to the BCCLA and Amnesty International in Nov. 2007, that sentence read, “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over [REDACTED].”

The Commons: Shrug and dismiss

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM - 126 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister stood and shrugged and declared that the military and the government had conducted themselves properly. Michael Ignatieff asked a second question. The Prime Minister rose and shrugged once more, suggesting the Liberal leader was without evidence of wrongdoing by the Canadian Forces.

In the face of futility, Mr. Ignatieff switched to English for a third try. “Mr. Speaker, there are no allegations against Canadian Forces. It is the conduct of the government that is in question,” he attempted to clarify for the umpteenth time. “The government has withheld evidence, it has intimidated witnesses, it has censored documents. This morning it even tried to prevent Parliament from debating the issue. The Prime Minister is responsible for this conduct. He is responsible for a year of wilful blindness. What does he have to hide?”

The Prime Minister stood here to declare the matter closed. “Mr. Speaker, the reason the leader of the opposition now tries to say he does not point the finger at the Canadian Forces and diplomats is, of course, because they have always respected their obligations. These people have been operating in extremely difficult conditions in Afghanistan. Whenever they have been faced with difficulties, they have taken the appropriate action,” he explained. “Systems have been changed two, three, four years ago. This issue has long since been dealt with.”

The government would seem to no longer be interested in trying to explain itself. Continue…

The pivotal paperwork

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM - 66 Comments

Here, again, is the report that apparently precipitated General Walter Natynczyk’s correction yesterday morning. And here is the same report included among the 1,185 pages of documents provided to the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International—collected here—by the government on Nov. 14, 2007 during the course of a federal court case.

As noted, when the report was cited yesterday, it included a reference to abuse. In the version released in Nov. 2007, that portion of the report appears to have been redacted. The offices of Gen. Walter Natynczyk and Defence Minister Peter MacKay have been asked to explain that difference and a response is said to be forthcoming. It will be posted here as soon as it arrives.

(For anyone who has downloaded the entire 1,185 page file, the above document appears at page 879.)

The Commons: 'Will they stop already?'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM - 89 Comments

The Scene. “General Natynczyk said what the government has been saying all along,” the Prime Minister explained en francais with his first opportunity.

Across the way, Gilles Duceppe burst out laughing.

Sixteen times these past few weeks members of this government told the House that not a single proven allegation of abuse suffered by a Canadian-transferred detainee could be found. The Defence Minister, the Transport Minister and the Defence Minister’s parliamentary secretary all testified as such.

Two days ago, the Globe reported otherwise. General Walter Natynczyk insisted that a close reading of the situation in question demonstrated the detainee, later beaten by Afghan authorities, was not so much detained and transferred, as merely questioned. And government ministers insisted on accepting Gen. Natynczyk’s version of events.

Only just before noon today, Gen. Natynczyk summoned the cameras and notepads and announced that he was wrong, that new information indicated the detainee in question was not just questioned, but in fact taken into custody. And so suddenly, it seemed, there was some explaining to do.

Continue…

As it happened in the past?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM - 5 Comments

The CBC posts the field notes that apparently led to Walter Natynczyk’s statement this morning. The Globe posts a transcript of the General’s press conference, including his reading of the section commander’s report, which includes this sentence.

We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over to ensure that if the Afghan national police did assault him as it happened in the past, that we would have a visual record of his condition.

Segue of the Day

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 6:28 PM - 4 Comments

Jack Layton’s second and third questions today.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, will they stop already. The Prime Minister and defence minister cannot spin their way out of this one. The Chief of Defence Staff just contradicted everything that they have been saying in this House time and time again. The minister claimed there was no proof of abuse. He was wrong, and he should take responsibility and resign, and if not, the Prime Minister should demand it today.

…

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is clearly skating on this one. Let me talk about what our Canadian winter Olympic athletes are saying about climate change … Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the pressure is increasing on the government to take action on climate change. It is global. Here is what our own athletes in the winter Olympics have to say: Many of us are already seeing the impact of climate change on our beloved winter sport. We can’t sit on the sidelines when solutions exist.” Does the government even realize that our winter sports are at risk because of climate change?

'Clarify some of the inaccuracies'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 6:23 PM - 1 Comment

Richard Colvin’s lawyer tells the CBC that his client will be providing a written response to some of the subsequent testimony offered to the special committee on Afghanistan.

Do MacKay and Natynczyk not talk?

By John Geddes - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM - 81 Comments

Given how much information there is to digest from Gen. Walter Natynczyk’s extraordinary news conference this morning, an answer he gave that suggests a weirdly distant relationship between the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of National Defence might easily go unremarked. That would be too bad.
Continue…

Natyncyzk corrects himself

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM - 49 Comments

In a press conference just now, the Chief of Defence Staff has said he learned this morning that the detainee tortured by Afghan officials in the summer of 2006 was originally in the custody of Canadian Forces.

Reports from Canadian Press, Canwest, CBC, the Globe and Mail, CTV, the Star, the Sun and Bloomberg.

Background here , here and here.

The fully updated Colvin Encyclopedia is here.