• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter rceme_rat
  • Start date Start date
O'Connor issues about-face on detainees
Defence Minister acknowledges Canada is not informed on the treatment and transfer of detainees it apprehends in Afghanistan
ALEX DOBROTA Globe and Mail Update
Article Link

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in an about-face from earlier comments, acknowledged Thursday that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not inform Canada of the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops and transferred to Afghan authorities.

In a terse statement released to The Globe and Mail Thursday evening, Mr. O'Connor said: "It was my understanding that the ICRC could share information concerning detainee treatment with Canada.

"I have recently learned that they would, in fact, provide this information to the detaining nation, in this case Afghanistan."

Those comments contradict several assurances Mr. O'Connor made in the House of Commons. In May, Mr. O'Connor told MPs that the Red Cross would report any detainee abuse to Canadian authorities.
More on link
 
GAP said:
In a terse statement released to The Globe and Mail Thursday evening, Mr. O'Connor said: "It was my understanding that the ICRC could share information concerning detainee treatment with Canada.  "I have recently learned that they would, in fact, provide this information to the detaining nation, in this case Afghanistan."

Here is the statement, to let you judge just how "terse" (adj., crisp: brief and to the point; effectively cut short; "a crisp retort"; "a response so curt as to be almost rude") the statement was:

Statement by the Minister of National Defence
News release NR-07.013, 8 Mar 07
Statement

OTTAWA - I would like to respond to the article in the Globe & Mail of March 8 entitled “Red Cross contradicts Ottawa on detainees”

At the outset, I would like to clarify one point. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has indeed carried out several visits to detainees in temporary Canadian custody in Kandahar. This is consistent with Canada's commitment to cooperate with the ICRC in fulfilling its mandated responsibilities under international humanitarian law to monitor conditions of detention.

On December 18, 2005, the previous Liberal government signed an arrangement with the Government of Afghanistan regarding the transfer of detainees from the Canadian Forces to the Afghan authorities. As per this arrangement, we continue to transfer all persons detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities, and to notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The article makes reference to comments that I made in the House of Commons last May. It was my understanding that the ICRC could share information concerning detainee treatment with Canada. I have recently learned that they would in fact provide this information to the detaining nation, in this case Afghanistan.

That said, Canadian officials maintain an open and constructive dialogue regarding detainee issues in Afghanistan with the ICRC, in Ottawa, Geneva and in the field. Canada strongly supports the role of the ICRC, one of its most valued partners, in the promotion of international humanitarian law and in its mandate regarding the protection of detainees. ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger, during his visit to Canada in September 2006, underscored this fact when he expressed his appreciation for the excellent cooperation between the ICRC and Canada.

With respect to the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), while there is no requirement mandating additional notification under international law, Canada has chosen to enter into an arrangement in support of the AIHRC's constitutional mandate to monitor the overall situation of human rights in Afghanistan.

This will also provide an additional avenue for Afghans to obtain information on the whereabouts of their relatives, if they are believed to have been detained. The AIHRC is appreciative of this measure.

Gordon O’Connor
The Minister of National Defence

-30-
 
and people wonder why the capable and competent people of the country think & pass on the prospect of running for office.... it's not worth it!  Media hatchet jobs!
 
St. Micheals Medical Team said:
Media mountain building.

It is that, but: whether through ignorance or idleness O’Connor misled the House.  That’s a mortal sin for a minister of the crown.

The minister has only two real responsibilities:

• To represent (protect, promote)his/her department’s programme in cabinet and cabinet committees; and

• To be politically accountable for the department in parliament – and, indirectly, therefore, to Canadians.

The doctrine of ministerial responsibility has changed and is still changing in Westminster style parliamentary democracies.  We are all falling into line with our American cousins where the system of checks and balances requires a high degree of political oversight of the judiciary, the (upper levels of the ) bureaucracy and the military.  It is, now, quite normal for formerly ‘faceless’ and ‘fireproof’ civil servants to be grilled by parliamentary committees – just as they are in the US by congressional committees.  This is, probably, good and proper because Canadian senior officials have been political almost from the get go.  Diefenbaker, Pearson, Clark, Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper all ‘shook up’ the top levels of the civil service because, in some measure, they doubted the political neutrality or policy bent of the most senior officials.

We now accept that ministers should not resign over every glitch in the administration of their department because ministers cannot – and ought not to be expected to – micromanage every aspect of their portfolio; that’s why officials exist and officials ought to be accountable to someone beyond the Auditor General – although the power of that office is great.  The pendulum of accountability swung too far one way during Mulroney’s administration and waaaay too far the other in the Chrétien regime.  Ministers ought not to fall on their swords every time a lazy, ignorant press corps gets its collective knickers in a knot, but ministers, despite M. Chrétien’s protestations to the contrary, are not paragons of virtue either.

One thing which has not changed, however, is that ministers are expected to tell parliament the truth – not necessarily the whole truth but no untruths.  O’Connor has failed – more than once.

It appears to me that O’Connor is lazy.  I know he’s not a stupid man or a careless one – once briefed he usually had a firm grip on a subject.  I think he had fewer briefings than many other ministers thought necessary – and perhaps in less depth, too.  Perhaps he thought/thinks he is protected by his knowledge, perhaps he’s just getting too old for long, detailed briefings on subject that might seem like administrivia.  For whatever reason he appears to me to be just about the least informed minister in parliament – maybe for a very long time.

However, all is not black: he has done well at the cabinet table and in front of the all-important cabinet Priorities and Planning Committee (I think the Tories still call it that) where the key political decisions re: defence spending and policy are made.

The media has been out to get O’Connor from Day 1.  He’s not a nice, warm friendly sort and, worse, he has played media favourites, according to rumours I heard back in Ottawa last year.  The media went after him, hard, over the unfounded non-story that O’Connor was a lobbyist; they’re at it again.  This time it might stick.  He may have to go.

I don’t think Prime Minister Harper knows, thinks or cares much about defence policy and the Canadian Forces.  He is, I think focused on one, key, big foreign policy issue: Restoring Canada to Leadership Status in the world community.  Our defence policy, our mission in Afghanistan, and our military people are tools which he will use to accomplish that important goal.  Personally, I think that’s how prime ministers ought to think and operate.  Canada is not about the Canadian Forces – we (you, actually, except when I manage to stay awake at a regimental dinner night) are tools, our job, our raison d’être is to give Canadian governments options to protect and promote Canada's interests in the world.  Prime Minister Harper has, again and again, defined our vital interests as including a leadership role and he has, also more than once, noted that the sacrifices Canadian military members make – including the supreme sacrifice - is part of the price Canada pays for that leadership role.  I will not be surprised if, despite his services to Canada, DND and the Conservative Party, Harper dumps O’Connor as a political liability.
 
Of course the Liberals are all too aware of the details of the agreement as they negotiated it! Better send a letter to the papers reminding them who made this deal.  :rage:
 
ut the conservatives are in power in now.  The are aware of the situation.  We can't keep blaming the Liberals they have not been in power for over a year :)
 
The deal was signed in 2005 under the care and direction of the Liberals and carried on by the CPC, O'Conner can be blamed for a sloppy staff that didn't brief him on the details. but any short-comings with the deal are the direct result of the Liberal party policies.
 
                  I guess. Cats out of the bag now, though.  I don't think the Liberals or the DND staff were aware at the time of how may prisoners the CF would be capturing.  I hope O'Connor makes it a priority though.
 
I'm afraid I agree with E.R. Campbell; the CDS may also bear some responsibility.  A post at The Torch:

Afghan prisoners: Prof. Attaran's agenda/Minister O'Connor
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/03/afghan-prisoners-prof-attarans.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
O'Connor to meet with Afghan rights commission
Updated Sun. Mar. 11 2007 11:48 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is in Kandahar for a visit with Canadian troops and to meet with the Afghan Human Rights Commission.

Earlier this month, Canada finalized a deal with the commission to monitor the treatement of Taliban detainees handed over to the government of Afghanistan.

The cooperative effort came just days after news broke that three Afghan prisoners who are considered key witnesses in a probe into allegations of abuse by Canadian soldiers disappeared.

The disappearance evoked strong criticism of Canada's prisoner handover agreement.

O'Connor was also criticized for claiming that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) monitored the treatment of the detainees and that they would report back to Canadian officials if anything was wrong.

The ICRC denied the claims saying they would never tell Ottawa about any abuses.

Simon Schorno, a spokesman for the ICRC, told The Globe and Mail that the ICRC can only make known its assessments or interventions to the government whose facilities it is visiting. Under its own charter, the ICRC is not allowed to disclose findings to third parties.

Operation Achilles

Coalition forces involved in Operation Achilles are slowly making progress against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a NATO spokesman said Sunday.

Squadron Leader Dave Marsh said British commandos backed by NATO air strikes have taken out Taliban strongholds south of Lashkargah -- in the northern Helmand province.
More on link

 
An update

O'Connor meets with Afghan rights commission
Updated Mon. Mar. 12 2007 6:51 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor met with the head of the Afghan Human Rights Commission on Monday in an attempt to defuse a controversy over the treatment of battlefield detainees.

"He has even gone to an Afghan prison today to personally see the conditions that some of the detainees would be put in," said CTV's Tom Clark in Afghanistan.


O'Connor also held extensive meetings with Canadian staff in an effort to fully understand how the prisoner transfer process works, said Clark.

Meanwhile, Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier made a surprise visit to Kandahar on Monday and will join up with O'Connor.

The pair will tour the frontlines of Canada's mission in the region, said Clark.

Earlier this month, Canada finalized a deal with the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission to monitor the treatment of Taliban detainees handed over by Canadian troops to the government of Afghanistan.

"I want to look the man in the eyes and I want to be confirmed that they are going to do what they say they are going to do," O'Connor said Sunday of his meeting with the commission head in Kandahar. "I just want an assurance from him that they will monitor and inform us of any abuses."

The co-operative effort was announced just days after news broke that three Afghan prisoners who are considered key witnesses in a probe into allegations of abuse by Canadian soldiers disappeared.

The disappearance evoked strong criticism of Canada's prisoner handover agreement.
More on link

 
Another update

O'Connor to meet with Afghan human rights leader
Updated Tue. Mar. 13 2007 6:53 AM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has set up a new meeting with an Afghan human rights leader to discuss Canada's detainee policy.

O'Connor is to meet with Abdul Noorzai of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission on Wednesday at the NATO base in Kandahar.

The two men were supposed to hold discussions Monday in Kandahar city but the meeting was cancelled at the last moment.

Canada has signed an agreement with the commission to monitor the treatment of Taliban prisoners that are handed over to the Afghan government.

O'Connor has said he wants Noorzai's group to ensure it's capable of the job, which would include reporting on any prisoner abuse.

The minister has been criticized over Canada's policy on the handing over of detainees.
More on link
 
The Meeting happens

O'Connor meets with human rights group director
Updated Wed. Mar. 14 2007 7:57 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

After meeting with the head of an Afghan human rights commission charged with monitoring the fate of Afghan detainees handed to local authorities, Canada's defence minister says he's reasonably confident the group is up to the task.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor met Wednesday with Abdul Noorzai, the regional director of the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission at a holding centre at the Kandahar base.

O'Connor, who arrived in Afghanistan on the weekend, was reportedly supposed to meet with Noorzai on Monday, but the meeting was cancelled without explanation about an hour before it was supposed to take place.

Noorzai did not speak to media representatives after the meeting, but he has said the commission has limited resources and faces challenges such as security concerns and a small staff. He also said his inspectors sometimes have trouble actually getting into prison facilities.

After the Wednesday meeting, O'Connor said Canada will work with the commission to assist in transporting prisoners and ensuring the group has access to them while they are under detention.

"The minister did say he will give the human rights commission resources, some help to be able to go out and follow prisoners who are taken by Canadian soldiers when they are handed over to the Afghans," said CTV's Paul Workman, reporting from Kandahar.

"And that's really the worry here, Canada just doesn't know what happens to these prisoners after they are handed over," Workman told CTV's Canada AM.

Canada's prisoner handover agreement, signed in 2005, does not include provisions for the Canadians to monitor the treatment of detainees after they are handed over.
More on link
 
Prisoner transferred to Afghans vanished
Disappearance calls into question pact struck with ANA for handling detainees
GLORIA GALLOWAY From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

OTTAWA — A Taliban fighter captured by Canadians last summer went missing within hours of being placed in Afghan custody.

The disappearance, recorded in documents forwarded to The Globe and Mail, underlines the pitfalls in the controversial agreement — signed between Canada and Afghanistan in 2005 — to turn over Taliban prisoners to Afghan authorities.

During and after a frenzied battle in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province that left one young Canadian dead and three others wounded, Canadian soldiers claimed six prisoners, the documents show.

One of the captured men was sent by helicopter to a military hospital at the Kandahar Air Field (KAF), where soldiers hoped to question him after his recovery. He died from his injuries three days later, his identity still unknown.

More on link
 
DND doubts watchdog's role in Afghan abuse probe
OLIVER MOORE From Friday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

The Department of National Defence says it doesn't believe a military watchdog has jurisdiction to look into a complaint about the handover of prisoners in Afghanistan.

The dispute may end up in a court showdown between DND and the Military Police Complaints Commission. If DND refuses to co-operate in its investigation, the commission says, it may be forced to hold public hearings.

In a letter, DND says it is set to seek a judicial review, but has given chairman Peter Tinsley until Monday to explain why the commission accepted the complaint from two civil-liberties groups.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International Canada lodged the complaint last month, arguing military police are typically the last Canadians to have custody of prisoners before they are given over to Afghan authorities. The groups said troops handed prisoners over to Afghan authorities, even though they should have known Afghan police and the security directorate "routinely tortures prisoners."

More on link
 
I was just wondering the same thing about people asking
the Army to explain itself about the transfer. Laws goes with territory,
i.e. Canadian laws applied to Canada, Afghan laws to Afghanistan .

I understand that some Canadians might question the usage overt there,
but isn't not under Canadian laws ?
 
I'm no lawyer, but I'm wondering what the good Colonel and his fellow JAG officers are thinking with this move?  I've put up a post at The Torch about this:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-are-they-thinking.html

It seems to me that the MPCC has the "letter of the law" mandate to conduct such an investigation, even if it is stretching the intent of the Committee's scope.  It's a backdoor way to attack the policy, by attacking the front-line MP's who are executing the detainee transfer agreement, but I don't see how DND can stop it.

In fact, I don't see why they'd want to even try.  Even if the JAG's office gets its way and the MPCC investigation into the detainee transfer issue is shut down - which is a long shot, IMO - it's not going to make the issue go away entirely.  The attack on the policy will still be prosecuted in the press, and with more vigour than ever because of a perception that they're now "fighting The Man!" and "speaking truth to power."

In other words, even if the JAG lawyers win this battle, they'll be hurting the CF's overall PR war.  Unless I'm missing something...
 
Back
Top