Final day for agreement on Afghan detainee document disclosure

I expect that the Conservative government knows full well that the Liberals in particular will not risk an election at this time. The Conservatives will continue to insist on having a veto over what is released in order that nothing damaging to their credibility should emerge. One would think that Conservative credibility is already damaged but nevertheless the polls show no dip in support. Ignatieff's leadership would no doubt account for this! This is from The Star.

Speaker Peter Milliken extends deadline for Afghan document disclosur

Richard J. Brennan



CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS
OTTAWA – House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken has agreed to extend until Friday the deadline for the Conservative government to hand over uncensored Afghan detainee documents to Parliament, or at least arrive at an all-party agreement on how to do it.

The sticking point on the release of controversial Afghan documents is the fact the Conservative government still wants to have the final say over what is made public, opposition MPs said Tuesday.

“The key issue is what happens in the events the government doesn’t agree with information that should be disclosed or how it should be handled,” NDP house leader MP Libby Davies told reporters.

Fellow New Democrat MP Jack Harris suggested more bluntly the government still wants a type of veto over what should be released to Parliament and what should be kept secret for national security reasons, despite the speaker’s ruling to the contrary.
“The real issue here is who makes the ultimate decision and our point of view is that it has to be Parliamentarians who make that ultimate decision … that’s the process we proposed. No veto,” Harris s
aid, referring to the MPs who will make up the review committee.

In his ruling, Milliken made it clear he wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to hand over uncensoredd documents. Otherwise, the government risks being found in contempt of Parliament, which could precipitate an election.





NDP MP Joe Comartin suggested if a deal is not reached by Friday, then one might not be reached at all. “Our sense is we’ve had enough time, exchanged enough concepts and ideas and proposals and that it’s decision-making time,” he told the Toronto Star.

Board: Afghan authorities beat citizens on whim.

Although turning over detainees in these circumstances is probably a war crime I expect nothing will be done. Eventually the opposition will get tired of attacking the government or realize that probably the vast majority of Canadians could care less or may even think that the detainees are getting what they deserve. Thinking otherwise would be to be soft on terrorists. I expect that soon the whole issue will disappear. However perhaps no agreement on the issue of release of documents will be reached and then there could still be a few fireworks.

Afghan authorities beat citizens on 'whim': board
By CBC News
CBC News


Canadian soldiers saw and talked about Afghan authorities beating citizens in the street "on an apparent whim" around the time a suspected Taliban fighter turned over to Afghan police was assaulted in June 2006, a military board of inquiry has found.

The board revealed the suspected insurgent who was assaulted by Afghan police in front of Canadian soldiers wasn't considered a detainee because of the soldiers' confusion over the policy in place.

But the inquiry also admitted it could not locate a number of documents and records related to the incident, including war diaries, radio chat logs, as well as daily, weekly and individual patrol reports.

Field report transcript

20:00 14 Jun 06 [location redacted]

Stopped along Rte [redacted] and held up a vehicle that was proceeding south down the route. Stopped and searched the three individuals in the white van and got a very weird feel from one of them.

Had the terp [interpreter] come and he [unclear] that the individual was in all probability enemy (Taliban) due to his accent and his false story of being from Kandahar city. So I had him lie down on his stomach, then conducted a detailed search. (I had him empty his pockets prior to this) catalogued all his items and then took down his particulars (name [redacted] from Uruzgan).

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.

The ANP Section Comd, [redacted] then arrived, asked the suspect a couple of questions and concurred with our assessment that the individual was enemy.

We in good faith handed the PUC [person under control] over to them so that he could be transported to the Zhari District Centre [Forward Operating Base Wilson] where [watchdog] (a radio call-sign for military police) could get him. That was the last I saw him. [redacted] is one of [redacted] men.

(View the report [http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/soldier-055.pdf] )

The incident, first disclosed last December by Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's top military commander, immediately prompted opposition parties to accuse Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government of misleading Canadians over its claims that there was no evidence that detainees transferred by Canadian troops into Afghan custody before 2007 were abused.


During a routine mounted patrol, the soldiers pulled over a vehicle and singled out an individual for searching due to "suspicious activity." The soldiers handed over the man to a passing Afghan National Police truck to be taken to the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) in Zhari district, and then noticed the police assaulting him when the truck pulled away.

When they caught up with the man, they determined he had a bloody nose and some contusions from the police hitting him with their shoes. They gave him medical treatment, food and water, Maddison said.

The incident wasn't reported to superiors because the soldiers mistakenly "did not believe there was a requirement to report such events," Maddison told reporters on Friday.

"In the minds of soldiers who are trusted on the field to make the right decision and save lives, in their mind, this was not a detainee event that required reporting.

"In their minds, this was a person under their control and that they were facilitating the transfer to the ANSF. So there was a discrepancy that emerged on the battlefield between the intent in the policy and how it was being operationalized in the field."


....
As for the missing documents, Maddison said the board was "absolutely confident" it had what was required to make its findings. The board is investigating why some diaries "were not in place," but the fact that some daily briefings and situation reports could not be located "didn't come as a significant surprise," he said.

"There is a certain amount of what we call the fog of war."

Natynczyk, chief of the defence staff, was forced to correct himself in December when he first learned of the case, a day after telling a parliamentary committee the individual was captured by Afghan forces, not Canadian soldiers. He then ordered an inquiry into how the incident failed to climb up the military chain of command to him or his predecessor, Rick Hillier.

The board made no recommendations on improving detainee transfer reporting because it found the military now has a "unambiguous" management system of documenting and reporting detainees in place.

The detainee issue came to the forefront last November following allegations by Richard Colvin, a former senior diplomat with Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Colvin, now based in Washington, told a parliamentary committee that prisoners were turned over to Afghan prison officials by the Canadian military in 2006-07, despite his warnings to the Canadian government that they would be tortured.

Government and military officials - past and present - have vehemently denied his allegations.

Opposition MPs have called for a public inquiry into the Afghan detainee affair and demanded to see uncensored documents pertaining to the issue. The government has refused, citing national security.

Last week, House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken ruled the government was wrong to deny MPs access to the documents and called on all parties to find a solution that would balance national security concerns with Parliament's right to examine the material.

Former Ambassador: Diplomats knew detainees could be tortured by Afghan government.

This is just part of the dirt that goes on and goes on without anything ever being done about it because no one wants anything done about it. In fact the dirt might be useful in getting intelligence from detainees as the result of torture. Or it may be that it is done just because there is hardly any alternative. Perhaps they could give them to the US to be tortured in Bagram on occasion!

Of course diplomats cover their ass with nonsense toilet paper they get from the Afghan government that assures them that no one will be tortured. The same sort of crap wipe was given by the Syrian government in the case of Canadians such as Arar who were tortured there. Organisations such as Amnesty have consistently documented torture in both countries. But for the diplomats all that is required is the proper ass wipe to show that you have made certain there will be no torture. This is from the TorontoSun.

Former ambassador: Diplomats knew detainees could be tortured
By ALTHIA RAJ, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

OTTAWA — Diplomats knew detainees could be tortured but the Afghan government assured Canada they would be treated humanely, a former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan testified Wednesday.

“Our reports for several years indicated that there was a high likelihood that torture was going on in Afghanistan detention facilities. However, we were confident that, based on information we had, that no Canadian transfer detainees had been abused or mistreated,” said David Sproule, Canada’s ambassador in Kabul from October, 2005, to April, 2007.

Sproule was testifying before the committee investigating allegations that Canadian Forces knowingly transferred detainees to Afghan authorities knowing they faced the risk of possible torture.

Diplomats obtained assurances “from the highest levels” of the Afghan government that detainees would be treated in accordance with international legal standards, he told .

“Just because the Afghanistan government provides those assurances, it doesn’t absolve Canada of its obligation if torture happens in Afghan facilities,” said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said diplomats couldn’t have known if any detainees were being tortured because they didn’t have the monitoring in place to know if did.

“They weren’t looking for Canadian detainees and they weren’t looking for abuse, it seems, so guess what? They didn’t find any,” he said.

Detainees who are tortured are probably reluctant to come forward because Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security, where they are held, is also responsible for investigating their claims, he said.

“No wonder they don’t have many facts or proof that there is torture going on,” Dewar said. “The people alleged to have taken part in the torture, are investigating it.”

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca

Issue of release of documents on detainees could end up in Supreme Court.

It remains to be seen whether the parties can sort this issue out or if Milliken can give a ruling that will satisfy the opposition. In any event I expect that any Supreme Court ruling would be in favor or some restrictions on the release of documents in the name of National Security. That is a sacred cow which must be kept so that governments can always have a way of avoiding scrutiny or accountability. This is from the Star.

Struggle between Parliament and government could reach Supreme Court
April 21, 2010

Susan Delacourt

OTTAWA–Will the Supreme Court of Canada have to step in to sort out the power struggle between the House of Commons and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government?

It’s a solution that some parliamentary experts and observers believe is possible after Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issues his historic ruling on whether Parliament or the government have the right to control the documents in the Afghan detainee controversy.

“On this one, I think that’s something the government certainly could do,” said Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen’s University and one of the country’s leading parliamentary scholars.

Milliken is expected to announce as early as Thursday his verdict in a serious, five-month-old standoff between the Harper government and the opposition in the Commons, which forms a majority. Milliken’s ruling could have significant implications for how power is exercised in parliamentary democracies – not just in Canada, but beyond.

In December, the three opposition parties banded together and passed a parliamentary order, compelling the government to produce all documents related to Canada’s treatment of detainees captured by Canadian forces in Afghanistan. The order has the force of law, but the government has argued that other laws, protecting national security for instance, weigh against wholesale compliance with the parliamentary dictate.

In many ways, this is a sequel to another constitutional crisis – specifically, the standoff immediately after the 2008 election, when the opposition parties banded together in a coalition that threatened to unseat Harper’s government.

The Liberals and New Democrats put together a coalition-government proposal, with tacit agreement from the Bloc Quebecois. But the Conservative government, in a massive public-relations campaign, argued that the coalition was undemocratic and a sop to separatists.

Governor General Michaelle Jean granted Harper a request to prorogue Parliament, but reportedly made clear, in a two-hour discussion with the Prime Minister, that the government was being granted the stay of execution on condition that it co-operate better with the majority opposition in the Commons.

Now, a little more than a year later, Harper’s refusal to co-operate with this parliamentary order could be viewed as defiance of the Governor General’s instructions. In that case, if this dispute lands in front of Jean again, she may have no choice but to dissolve Parliament, recognizing that it has become dysfunctional.

The Supreme Court, however, could represent a compromise of sorts. If Milliken sides with the argument that Parliament prevails over government, the Justice Department may well draft a formal reference to the Supreme Court – in the form of a constitutional, not a political question — about which laws have precedence in the case of a dispute.

In other words, rather than going to the Governor General, and almost certainly an election, the problem would head to the Supreme Court, where everyone could buy some time.

It’s not unheard of – former prime minister Jean Chretien asked the Supreme Court to sort out the rules of secession in the late 1990s and the current, Conservative government is asking the Supreme Court to issue an opinion on whether the federal government has the authority to establish a national securities regulator. The provinces and Liberal senators have also been urging Harper to put his Senate-reform ideas to the Supreme Court.

Franks said this isn’t an ideal situation in the current standoff – in a perfect world, Parliament wouldn’t defer to the Supreme Court to sort out its own powers. Franks suspects and hopes that Milliken is able to issue a ruling that treads somewhere down the middle, allowing the government and the Commons to sit down and solve this standoff themselves.

“I would far rather see the two sides in Parliament sort this out than have it go to the Supreme Court,” Franks said.