• 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

Afghan detainees: Ardent Amir, or, “Judgement at Kandahar”?

Amir Attaran. Is he a Canadian citizen, or does he just work here?

His status should be announced by the media. If he was not a lefty,media headlines would be along the lines of: "Hard Right American Criticises Canadian Soldiers Actions on the Battlefield" or "U of O American Professor Demands Conservatives Prosecute Canadians Soldiers For War Crimes".
Afghan detainees: What, no quote from Ardent Amir?

From Justice Canada:
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced that three eminent jurists, the Honourable Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, C.C., G.O.Q., the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, C.C., Q.C., and the Honourable Donald I. Brenner, Q.C., will serve as the panel of arbiters for the Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians reviewing the Afghan detainee documents.

""These highly-respected legal experts will help to ensure that the work of the Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians does not jeopardize Canada's national defence, international relations and national security,"" said Minister Nicholson. ""I am confident all parties involved will proceed in good faith so that our men and women serving abroad will be able to perform their duties safely and effectively. This has been the Government's primary concern from day one.""

The composition of the panel of arbiters was agreed to unanimously by the Government and two Opposition parties ....
Which party isn't happy?  This from QMI/Sun Media
.... The three parties on the committee all agreed on the judges. The NDP withdrew from the (Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians) committee because the party couldn't agree on the terms of reference ....
CP trying to dig up dirt, stir pot, economizing with truth (usual copyright disclaimer):

Spy service reviews 'controversial' role in Afghan detainee interrogations

OTTAWA - Canada's spy agency has ordered a "comprehensive review" of its dealings with detainees in Afghanistan amid questions about its role in conducting interrogations.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service quietly informed Public Safety Minister Vic Toews the review is designed to ensure the agency can clearly account for its involvement with Afghan prisoners, an internal memo obtained by The Canadian Press reveals.

The study could shed fresh light on the spy agency's interrogation of prisoners in the early years of the war in Afghanistan — one of several efforts to determine whether Canadian authorities knowingly transferred detainees into the hands of torturers.

"Given the high media profile and controversial nature of this issue, the Service has begun a comprehensive review of all its activities related to Afghanistan detainees," says the March memo to Toews, which was copied to the national security adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"This review is being conducted to ensure that the Service can clearly and without reservation account for its engagement during this period."

A heavily censored copy of the memo, originally classified secret, was released under the Access to Information Act.

It shows the spy service scrambled to brief Toews after The Canadian Press requested comment for a forthcoming story that revealed CSIS had worked alongside the military to question captured Taliban fighters.

It shows the spy service scrambled to brief Toews after The Canadian Press requested comment for a forthcoming story that revealed CSIS had worked alongside the military to question captured Taliban fighters.

Information from sources and witness transcripts filed with the Military Police Complaints Commission, which was probing the role of police in the transfers, indicated CSIS was called in to assist soldiers inexperienced at eliciting useful information.

The spies would sometimes make recommendations on which prisoners to hand over to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service, sources said, though Canadian military officials always had final say.

CSIS questioned Afghan detainees from 2002 through late 2007, when the military began to conduct interrogations without assistance [emphasis added], Michel Coulombe, the service's assistant director for foreign collection, told the Commons special committee on Afghanistan in May. The timeline roughly coincides with Canada's direct contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led war on terror [emphasis added, grrr!!! :rage: severe economy with the truth: the operation in Kabul 2003-2005 was only under NATO ISAF, and the Kandahar battle group switched from OEF to ISAF at the end of July 2006 after some six months under OEF].

Later in May, CSIS director Dick Fadden elaborated briefly on the agency's role, telling the Commons public safety committee the service was "frequently brought in" to ask captives questions, "usually to try to ascertain their identity, to try to find out what they had been up to. In most cases, these interviews lasted less than 15 or 20 minutes."

But he also hinted that the spy service continues to play a supporting role, within its broad mandate to protect Canadian interests.

"Basically, what we do is try to talk to people in Afghanistan who would have some intelligence, some information, about threats to both Canada and to our allies," he told MPs. "By definition, those people are either terrorists themselves, Taliban insurgents, or they're people who know something about them. So our job is, in one shape, form, or another, to try to acquire that kind of intelligence."

How the agency conducts its Afghan operations has never been discussed publicly.

It's been suggested CSIS officers at one time worked alongside the American CIA and in close co-operation with Canada's secretive, elite JTF-2 commandos from a secluded base in Kandahar known as Graceland [emphasis added]...

More on CSIS abroad at this topic:

Interesting choice of headlines here - "Military cops on need-to-know basis with detainees" - shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright  Act (highlights mine):
A senior officer who helped direct the war in Afghanistan has defended how much information military police received about possible torture in Afghan prisons.

Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps, now the air force chief, says the system of keeping everyone in the loop whenever a suspected Taliban fighter was captured evolved over time.

The Military Police Complaints Commission is investigating what military police knew — or should have known — about the alleged torture of prisoners after Canadians turned them over to Afghan authorities.

The commission has heard testimony suggesting military police were deliberately kept in the dark — and perhaps even obstructed — by the overseas headquarters based in Ottawa.

Deschamps was chief of staff for operations at the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command — CEFCOM — from 2006 to 2008 and says he doesn't believe military police had any responsibility for prisoners once they were out of Canadian custody.

He says CEFCOM had an officer specifically assigned to follow the prisoner file and information about conditions was funnelled toward that person and not deliberately kept out of the hands of MPs.

Is it "need to know information control" if information doesn't go to anyone who isn't responsible for the job at hand?  I thought MPs would have a hand in dealing with detainees we HAVE, not those we HAD (although I stand to be corrected).
Canadian Forces Release Statistics on Afghanistan Detainees - Screen capture at Scribd.com
Canada is participating in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan with 47 other nations at the request of the democratically elected government. Our ultimate aim is to leave Afghansitan to Afghans, a viable country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure.

Since the beginning of our military operations in Afghanistan in October 2001, the Government of Canada has been committed to ensuring that individuals detained by the Canadian Forces (CF) are handled and transferred or released in accordance with our obligations under international law.  Respect for the rule of law is an essential aspect of Canadian Forces operations. Members of the Canadian Forces and their civilian counterparts have consistently demonstrated tremendous professionalism in their respective roles regarding detainees.


Individuals detained by the CF since 2001


In 2001 there were no individuals detained by the Canadian Forces.


In 2002, the CF detained 17 individuals. 5 were released by the CF, while 12 were transferred.


In 2003, the CF detained four (4) individuals. All were released by the CF.


In 2004, the CF detained 39 individuals. 18 were released by the CF, while 21 were transferred.


In 2005, the CF detained eight ( 8 ) individuals. One (1) was released by the CF, while seven (7) were transferred.


In 2006, the CF detained 142 individuals. 11 were released by the CF, while 129 were transferred. Two (2) individuals died of wounds as a result of injuries suffered on the battlefield. Both individuals passed away at the Role 3 hospital while receiving medical care.


In 2007, the CF detained 142 individuals. 43 were released by the CF, while 96 were transferred. Three (3) individuals were detained near the close of 2007, but were not transferred until 2008. These individuals are counted as “detained” in 2007 and “transferred” in 2008.


In 2008, the CF detained 87 individuals. 71 were released by the CF, while 18 were transferred. One (1) individual was detained near the close of 2008 and is included in the 2008 “detained.” His transfer will be accounted for in the 2009 statistics.

The data above is based on a thorough review of all available records dating back to 2001.

Since May 2007, when monitoring began, Canadian officials have conducted more than 260* visits to detention facilities, conducting more than 265* interviews with detainees.

*Current as of September 2010
“The Canadian Forces have for years arrested children suspected of working with the Taliban and handed them over to an Afghan security unit accused of torture, CBC News has learned.  Allegations that militants captured by Canada were transferred to Afghan forces and later tortured were hotly debated in Parliament last fall.  A document obtained by the CBC's investigative unit shows that Canadian soldiers captured children as well in the fight against the Taliban, and that many of them were transferred to the custody of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, or NDS.  The document, obtained under an Access to Information request and marked "secret," shows that Defence Minister Peter MacKay was briefed on the topic of juvenile detainees in Afghanistan March 30 …. The briefing note alerts MacKay that the media could soon begin paying closer attention to the issue of juvenile detainees in Afghanistan once they got wind of a change in policy that called for the Canadian Forces to send captured children to a new facility, the Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre in Kandahar, instead of the Sarpoza prison …. And while the March 2010 briefing note suggests the government was "likely" to post information about the new facility on its website, that did not happen until Oct. 28, the same day the CBC received the briefing note through the Access to Information Act ….”

Here's the "before" backgrounder and here's the updated backgrounder referenced in the last sentence above - more here.
leroi said:
Great find, Gap!

Liberal blogger Scott Ross began doing the same regarding CBC using Attaran for sound bytes.

I wish the Loyal Opposition would focus more on THIS pervasive torture in Afghanistan:

'Shaming' Her In-Laws Cost 19-Year-Old Her Nose, Her Ears

I have a hard time being outraged about a detainee who MAY have been beaten by a shoe for a very
short time until saved by Canadian Forces while women are STILL being tortured like livestock in Afghanistan.


Photo Credit and Article CNN March 18, 2010: Afghanistan Crossroads

Her name is Bibi Aisha ...  her criminal-torturer fiancee was/is a Taliban bass-turd!!!!!

There's a video interview of Bibi here.

Follow Up

Afghan police trap man who mutilated runaway bride

Published Date: 09 December 2010
When Bibi Aisha's nose and ears were cut off by her husband and in-laws, no-one expected much to be done about it, especially because it happened in a remote area under Taleban control.

But thanks to support from aid groups, Aisha was whisked off to the United States for reconstructive surgery, and everyone assumed that it was case closed on the perpetrators.

Now it appears that, while Afghan police did not have a long enough arm to reach into the village that Aisha had fled, officers nonetheless did have long memories, and this week arrested one of the suspects.

"It would have taken 100 armoured vehicles to go in there to that village," said the district police chief, Mohammed Gul. Sooner or later, though, everyone in the area comes to the bazaar in the Chora district, in southern Oruzgan Province. When Aisha's father-in-law, Sulaiman, showed up, the police were waiting.

According to Mr Gul, Mr Sulaiman spotted the police at the same time as they spotted him, and made a run for it. Officers chased him on foot and ran him down a mile and a quarter later.

Aisha's case came to prominence in August when Time magazine used a picture of her on its cover, with the suggestion that this was what would happen if the West left Afghanistan.

A child bride, Aisha had fled her arranged marriage to a Taleban fighter, but was captured and returned to the village, where her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law carried out the mutilation, after approval by the local Taleban mullah. Left for dead, she said, she then fled to the safety of a women's shelter in Kabul run by Women for Afghan Women, which publicised her plight a year later.

Mr Gul said Mr Sulaiman, who like many Afghans has one name, confessed to participating in the disfigurement. He credited an unusual campaign from higher police officials pressing his department into trying to apprehend the perpetrators. "I had 15 letters and warrants come down for them," he said.

"This was a case of persistence and diligence by our police," said Zemarai Bashary, spokesman for the Ministry of Interior.

The provincial police chief in Oruzgan was scathing in denouncing the crime and its perpetrators. "Sulaiman pointed a gun at her head while his sons, sliced off her nose," said Brigadier General Juma Gul Himat. "Sulaiman then took her amputated nose and proudly showed it off around the village."

It is rare for the police in Afghanistan to intervene when local villagers impose punishments for social crimes, even severe ones such as flogging and stoning, which are allowed under Shariah law.

"This is against Afghan-ism, against Afghan and Shariah laws, against every principle in the world, against humanity, so that's why we wanted to bring him to justice," said Gen Himat.

He said that the police knew Mr Sulaiman well as an associate of what he called terrorists.

"He made a big mistake," the general said. "He disfigured a creature of God, and he was proud of what he had done."

Aisha's father, Hajji Muhammed Zai, confirmed that he had agreed to the betrothal of Aisha and her younger sister to Mr Sulaiman's family members, in payment of what is called "baad," a customary obligation owed by his own family. It is a common practice in rural areas. Both were infants when they were engaged.

Aisha, now 20, is living in the US being treated for emotional problems from her ordeal.


And Jack's trying to get it all back in the media:

Posted in accordance to....


Layton seeks public inquiry on Afghanistan documents.

Remember when the fight to release documents on Afghanistan detainees raged daily in the Commons and pushed the Tories to temporarily close down Parliament?

Exactly a year later, the debate is barely mentioned and the documents are nowhere to be seen.

A Liberal on the committee says a multi-party process for reviewing and eventually releasing the information on the treatment of war prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers is working.

But NDP Leader Jack Layton said Thursday it is time to call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the issue.

"This is an offence to Canadians, a subversion of their elected Parliament and it's something that needs to change," Layton said.

"People deserve answers. They have a right to know what their government knew."

On Dec. 10, 2009, the Commons voted to demand the release of documents by the government after a committee repeatedly received heaving redacted material.

House Speaker Peter Milliken later ruled the government was required to release the documents, but he gave it a chance to find a solution that would satisfy national security concerns.

What emerged was a special committee of Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs who would look over the files before a panel decided what would be released. So far nothing has been made public.

The NDP withdrew from the committee early in the process, complaining the government was still gatekeeping the flow of information.

Layton said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe should pull their MPs off the committee.

"They need to end the charade of their detainee-document deal with Mr. Harper because it's only keeping records hidden and standing in the way of a public inquiry," Layton said.

Bryon Wilfert, one of two Liberal members of the select committee reviewing the documents, said the NDP has no right to criticize a process it's chosen to boycott.

"They decided not to be part of this. They have absolutely no idea how the process is working," he said in an interview.

Wilfert said the process is working well with "goodwill all round" and no evidence of deliberate stalling by the government.

And he promised the public will see the fruits of the special committee's labours eventually.

"You can rest assured, there will be a status report . . . and information will be released."

Wilfert refused to say how soon that might happen.

"I wouldn't want to put any parameters on it because I can't. It could be soon-soon, it could be maybe a little later."

"If we weren't making progress, we wouldn't be part of it."

<Commonwealth tangent>
Meanwhile, it's not JUST Canada dealing with detainee issues, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.:
DEFENCE Minister Stephen Smith has finalised a long-term strategy for the management of Taliban detainees in Afghanistan.

The strategy coincides with the federal government's bid to strike a deal for the return of failed Afghan asylum-seekers to the war-torn country.

Mr Smith will announce the arrangements today, after his department repeatedly declined requests to even outline the interim arrangements that have existed since the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Oruzgan province.

Documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show that for over four months, the Australian Defence Force has been giving most Taliban detainees to Afghan authorities, with some going to the United States' detention facilities.

“Australia has concluded a bilateral arrangement with Afghanistan concerning the treatment of transferred detainees, including assurances provided by Afghan authorities in respect of the humane treatment of detainees and a right of access for Australian officials and humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the documents state.

“Interim guidelines on monitoring of detainees transferred by the ADF have also been established.”

The Defence Department last week refused to provide The Australian with further details of the interim arrangement or the guidelines in place, despite speculation overseas that Afghan authorities have freely allowed some Taliban detainees to escape.

The ADF only has a screening facility in Afghanistan - which was upgraded after being likened to dog cages - and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has called on the government to allow the ADF to detain suspects beyond 96 hours, as the Americans and British can.

</Commonwealth tangent>
Remember these allegations of Canadian troops shooting an unarmed kid in 2007, and other bad stuff?

The investigation is over - highlights mine:
The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), the independent investigative arm of the Canadian Forces Military Police, has concluded its investigation into the allegations made by Mr. Ahmadshah Malgarai before the House of Commons’ Special Committee on Afghanistan on April 14, 2010 with respect to his time spent employed as a language and cultural advisor in Afghanistan from July 2007 to July 2008. The CFNIS investigation determined that no service or criminal offences were committed ....
Reviving necrothread with update on Amir Attaran seeking detainee photos from DND via ATIP - Federal Court says "no photos for YOU!:
.... if the disputed photographs had depicted .... abusive treatment by members of the Canadian Forces a stronger case for disclosure would have arisen.  Here all that is represented by the three photographs in issue is the after-the-fact manifestation of an event that has been well described in the public record and where the person’s privacy interests would necessarily be compromised by the disclosure of the photographs. In this context, (DND)’s decision to withhold the three photographs of the injured detainee was amply supported by valid concerns for the safety of the individual and there is no basis for the Court interfering with the exercise of that discretion ....
I like the end of the judgement


[48]          Each party is seeking costs against the other.  The Respondent says that costs should follow the event.  Professor Attaran argues that even if he is not successful, he should recover costs against the Respondent on the strength of the public interest he is advancing.

[49]          There is some merit to the argument that a party who, in good faith, is seeking access to public documents for a public purpose ought to be shielded from a substantial award of costs.  That idea has added validity where the proponent does not have access to the records to allow for a considered assessment of the merits of the impugned withholding decision.

[50]          In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that Professor Attaran’s application was made in good faith and that he was at a substantial disadvantage by not knowing the substance of what had been withheld by the Respondent.  He was also advancing a cause that carried a significant public interest dimension.  At the same time, there were aspects to Professor Attaran’s initial judicial claim that were clearly unmeritorious and which were only abandoned very late in the process.

[51]          This is a situation where it is appropriate that each party bear its own costs. 
MarkOttawa said:
CP trying to dig up dirt, stir pot, economizing with truth (usual copyright disclaimer):
Spy service reviews 'controversial' role in Afghan detainee interrogations
A bit of closure, courtesy of The Canadian Press:
Canada's spy agency has been cleared of wrongdoing in connection with the abuse of Afghan detainees.

But the Security Intelligence Review Committee raised two issues for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to consider in future overseas operations — even though CSIS operations on foreign soil are limited by law.

The spy watchdog chided CSIS for not keeping adequate records and cautioned it to "assess and qualify with care and consistency" the intelligence it receives from agencies that may be party to human rights abuses.

It also recommended that if CSIS continues to operate abroad, its standards of accountability and professionalism should live up to those on Canadian soil.

CSIS's role in Afghanistan has been a source of controversy since The Canadian Press revealed in March 2010 that its operatives interviewed suspected Taliban fighters alongside military intelligence officers.

"In the course of SIRC's review, we found no indication that in the period during which CSIS conducted detainee interviews, CSIS officers posted to Afghanistan had first hand knowledge of abuse, mistreatment or torture of detainees by Afghan authorities," Arthur Porter, chair of the committee, said in a statement Thursday ....
Here's an excerpt from the Security Intelligence Review Committee's statement:
.... The Chair of SIRC, the Honourable Arthur T. Porter, P.C., M.D., stated that "“in the course of SIRC’s review, we found no indication that in the period during which CSIS conducted detainee interviews, CSIS officers posted to Afghanistan had first hand knowledge of abuse, mistreatment or torture of detainees by Afghan authorities.” "That said, SIRC’s report did raise two important issues for CSIS’s consideration. First, Dr. Porter noted that the review reinforces how important it is that CSIS assess and qualify with care and consistency, information originating from agencies that may engage in human rights abuses. SIRC was concerned that the Service could be open to criticism regarding its policy on information-sharing with agencies that have a poor human rights record, and recommended that the preamble of a Deputy Director Operations (DDO) Directive be reworded to bring it into alignment with its other policies on this issue.

Second, Dr. Porter suggested that "“should CSIS continue to expand its activities abroad and to provide support to Canadian efforts in volatile regions of the world, CSIS needs to ensure that the management of its operations abroad mirrors, to the extent practicable, the standard of accountability and professionalism that is set and maintained domestically.”" This conclusion stems from SIRC’s finding that CSIS did not comprehensively document its role in the interviews of Afghan detainees by keeping detailed records ....
Redacted review (21 pg PDF) downloadable from the SIRC page here.
International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo says his office will be releasing a report in the coming weeks that will decide whether to launch a formal investigation into Canada's treatment of Afghan detainees, among other things.

"There are serious allegations of crimes committed by different parties," he said in an exclusive interview with Postmedia News during a stop at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday.

"We are trying to find who is really allegedly responsible for crimes to check if there's a need for us to investigate or not."

Moreno-Ocampo said his report will not specifically focus on Canada's treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, but all crimes allegedly committed in that country and seven others.

Most allegations, he added, are against the Taliban, but all claims are being looked at.

The ICC was first asked to investigate whether Canada had committed war crimes in Afghanistan in 2007. That came after claims Canadian forces handed detainees over to Afghan security officials knowing they could be tortured.

In a documentary about him, Moreno-Ocampo told Canadian filmmaker Barry Stevens that he would investigate the issue if Canadian authorities didn't.

Critics have charged the Conservative government's refusal to investigate the matter itself leaves the door open to an ICC investigation and possible legal proceedings ....
Postmedia News, 15 Nov 11
Foreign Affairs Minister announces wrapping up of detainee paperwork....
As Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan is complete, the Government of Canada today announced the signing of a detainee-transfer arrangement with the Government of the United States of America to facilitate the transfer of detainees captured by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to the custody of U.S. Forces at the Detention Facility in Parwan, Afghanistan.

“From the onset of our engagement in Afghanistan, we have consistently adapted our detainee transfer process to ensure that we continue to meet our international legal obligations,” said Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. “With our combat operations in southern Afghanistan now complete and a new chapter of engagement in Afghanistan beginning, we have determined that this is the best possible way forward for all parties involved.”

“With the transition of Canada’s combat mission in Kandahar to a new training mission centred in Kabul, it became apparent that a new arrangement was needed for the Canadian Forces to continue their important work in Afghanistan,” said the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. “The facility in Parwan is used by ISAF allies, builds Afghan institutional capacities and allows for Canadian monitoring of detainees.”

The Detention Facility in Parwan, which is located north of Kabul, opened in January 2010. The U.S.-run facility is gradually transitioning to Afghan control and is recognized by the Government of Afghanistan as an appropriate facility for the detention of insurgents. Moreover, the Government of Afghanistan operates a court at the facility so that detainees can be prosecuted under Afghan law.

Canadian officials will continue to monitor the detainees transferred to the Detention Facility in Parwan.
DFAIT Info-machine, 9 Dec 11
The Military Police Complaints Commission issued its Interim Report, dated December 21, 2011, pursuant to section 250.48 of the National Defence Act, setting out its findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint delivered on June 12, 2008 by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association regarding allegations that certain members of the Military Police failed to investigate Canadian Task Force Commanders in Afghanistan for directing the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities in the face of a known risk of torture.

As required by the National Defence Act, the MPCC issued its Interim Report to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Judge Advocate General and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal. The national defence leadership will review the Interim Report in light of the Commission’s findings and recommendations and will advise in the form of a Notice of Action the Chairperson of the MPCC as well as the Minister of National Defence of any action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint. Reasons must be provided for not acting on any of the findings and recommendations in the report.

Following receipt and consideration of the Notice of Action, the MPCC will then prepare and publish a Final Report setting out the Commission’s findings and recommendations with respect to this complaint which will be provided to the complainants and the subject military police members.

Although the Interim Report is not made public, the Commission’s Final Report will be published on the MPCC website at www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca when it is issued ....
MPCC news release, 22 Dec 11
The Globe and Mail reports that: Watchdog clears Canadian troops in Afghan torture case. The reports says, "The Commission also found, however, that “significant problems did exist with respect to continuity of knowledge, accountability and information sharing within the Military Police.”"
E.R. Campbell said:
The Globe and Mail reports that: Watchdog clears Canadian troops in Afghan torture case. The reports says, "The Commission also found, however, that “significant problems did exist with respect to continuity of knowledge, accountability and information sharing within the Military Police.”"
And here's the Info-machine's version:
.... In the course of its investigation, which lasted nearly four years, the Commission determined that senior military commanders in Afghanistan did not believe that post-transfer issues were part of the mandate of the Military Police, and that MPs were “marginalized” when it came to discussions and information related to post transfer issues.  Information on detainee abuse, including reports on site visits conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to Afghan detention facilities, stayed within a small group of people in Afghanistan that excluded the Military Police.  Furthermore, the Commission found that “MP input into post-transfer detainee issues or the status of the transfer process would have been perceived as unwelcome.”

The Commission concluded, from the evidence as a whole, that none of the eight subjects of the complaint should have investigated the Task Force commanders while in theatre, or should have caused such an investigation to occur, and that their actions under the circumstances prevailing at the time “met the standards of a reasonable police officer.”

The Commission also found, however, that significant problems did exist with respect to continuity of knowledge, accountability and information sharing within the Military Police.
The report also contains a lengthy description of the obstacles experienced by the Commission related to procedural matters, and includes recommendations on improving the process for future public interest investigations and hearings.  The obstacles experienced by the Commission when it came to document production, witness access, parallel court proceedings and claims of national security were significant, and, in the Commission’s view, largely unnecessary and avoidable ....
Full report here