The story so far:
Canadian dip Richard Colvin says he reported to dozens of superiors in the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as the Department of Defence that Afghan prisoners of Canadian troops were almost certainly being tortured, even executed, on being handed over to Afghan authorities. He says officials in the two departments didn't want to know, and that he was told by Prime Minister Harper's office (no less) to shut up about it.
Scene two. Harpoon clams up, refuses to take, let alone answer questions from the press on his return to Canada from a junket through Asia. (There was no time in Steve's busy schedule to look in on the grunts in the `Stan. Some of `em will be dead before the next election anyway.) Tory attack dogs John Boor and Peter MacHackey call Colvin's allegations unbelievable. They described Colvin's allegations as "hearsay", "unsubstantiated" and "simply not credible.
Retired General Rick Hillier, M.A. (Master of Arslikhan) supports the government, says Afghanistan is not like Somalia. But now we hear from the present Canadian Chief of Staff, General Walt Natynczyk. [Gezundheit! ed.] To MacLie's annoyance, Natynczyk confirmed our army stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities on more than one occasion because of concerns about abuse. Until he dropped that little bombshell, the government position had been that the issue had come up only once.
Yesterday an Afghan rights agency, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, weighed in with its latest report. It says it has documented nearly 400 cases of torture from across the war-ravaged country.
On Saturday I wrote that torture of prisoners of war is forbidden under the Geneva Convention. It is also contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, and violators can now face trial in Canada for war crimes committed outside of the country. Ah, but...some would say...our troops did not actually torture anyone. Walt's legal advisor (Agent 3) says that if Mr. Colvin's allegations are true, Canadian troops could be found guilty of aiding and abetting the torturers by handing the prisoners over. Even if they didn't intend for the prisoners to be tortured by their compatriots, they are at least guilty of criminal negligence in handing them over, knowing that they might well be tortured or worse.
Who knew what? Who did what? Who did nothing? Let's have a public enquiry, starting later today if possible! A parliamentary committee is already asking questions, but -- remember the Schreiber enquiry -- parliamentary committees are by definition more concerned with politics than human rights abuses. Let's get a judge, someone like Louise Arbour, on this.
Showing posts with label prisoners of war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prisoners of war. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Afghanistan, the new Somalia
This past Wednesday, November 18th, I recommended Michael Maren's book, The Road to Hell. A large part of the book details the author's experiences as an "agent of virtue" in Somalia, and the US military debacle there. The shameful Canadian intervention also gets a mention.
Fast forward 15 years or so to the NATO occupation of Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers have suffered many casualties, but inflicted many as well, and taken many prisoners besides.
What happened to the Afghans who were taken prisoner? According to Richard Colvin, Canada's top dip in Afghanistan until recently, the prisoners were routinely handed over to the Afghan authorities [an oxymoron? ed.]. Many, perhaps the majority, were tortured. Some were killed.
So what? Canada has lost 132 good young men and women to the barbarities of roadside bombs, ambushes, etc. Other NATO countries have lost hundreds more. So some Afghans were tortured or murdered? An eye for an eye!
Just one thing. Torturing and executing prisoners of war is against the rules. It's contrary to the Geneva Convention. So is handing prisoners over to others who you know will deal with them in such a way. If our troops did what Mr. Colvin says they did, they are guilty of or complicit in warm crimes.
Mr. Colvin says he reported this to his superiors, notably David Mulroney who is now the Canadian ambassador to China. Predictably, no-one wanted to know anything about any breach of the rules of engagement. They told him to be like the three wise monkeys -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. According to Mr. Colvin, orders to shut up came from the office of the Prime Minister...another Harpoon from Steve Harper.
James Travers, writing in today's Toronto Star, comments thus:
If the allegations are true, those accountable for the mission put self-interest ahead of national interest. In protecting themselves they exposed Canadian troops to war crimes risk and local retribution, smeared this country's human rights reputation and made nonsense of the argument that Canada's guiding Afghanistan purpose is to seed values, rights and justice.
Just so. Just as happened in Somalia. Mr. Travers sees the parallel between our missions in Somalia and Afghanistan, and lays the blame for any misdeeds not at the feet of our troops, but on the military and political leaders in Ottawa. Quite right he is.
Also on my recommended reading list today is "Advice for the PM", Norman Spector's blog in today's Globe and Mail. Mr. Spector castigates Defence Minister Peter Mackay and the Harper government's resident pit bull, John Baird, for their ad hominem attacks on Mr. Colvin. When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger, eh, boys?
Mr. Spector joins the Liberals and NDP in calling for a public enquiry, not into the conduct of our troops but into the sins of omission or commission of Conservative government. Mr. Travers agrees, and also has something to say about our commander-in-chief at the time, Gen. Rick Hillier.
When questioned about what happened in Afghanistan on his watch, Gen. Hillier responded (I'm paraphrasing here) that whatever we did, it wasn't as bad as what we did in Somalia, where Canadian troops exacted their own retribution on some Somali kids who were unlucky enough to get caught.
Gen. Hillier is proud that in Afghanistan our soldiers behaved in a more professional manner, by turning the prisoners over to their own people. But Travers argues that what should disturb us is the way the situation was handled -- or not handled -- by the military brass and mandarins in Ottawa.
"What's unfolding now is the same old story," Travers writes. "Distant events spiral out of control, secrecy silences truth and the messenger is humiliated, then shot." Shame!
Fast forward 15 years or so to the NATO occupation of Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers have suffered many casualties, but inflicted many as well, and taken many prisoners besides.
What happened to the Afghans who were taken prisoner? According to Richard Colvin, Canada's top dip in Afghanistan until recently, the prisoners were routinely handed over to the Afghan authorities [an oxymoron? ed.]. Many, perhaps the majority, were tortured. Some were killed.
So what? Canada has lost 132 good young men and women to the barbarities of roadside bombs, ambushes, etc. Other NATO countries have lost hundreds more. So some Afghans were tortured or murdered? An eye for an eye!
Just one thing. Torturing and executing prisoners of war is against the rules. It's contrary to the Geneva Convention. So is handing prisoners over to others who you know will deal with them in such a way. If our troops did what Mr. Colvin says they did, they are guilty of or complicit in warm crimes.
Mr. Colvin says he reported this to his superiors, notably David Mulroney who is now the Canadian ambassador to China. Predictably, no-one wanted to know anything about any breach of the rules of engagement. They told him to be like the three wise monkeys -- see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. According to Mr. Colvin, orders to shut up came from the office of the Prime Minister...another Harpoon from Steve Harper.
James Travers, writing in today's Toronto Star, comments thus:
If the allegations are true, those accountable for the mission put self-interest ahead of national interest. In protecting themselves they exposed Canadian troops to war crimes risk and local retribution, smeared this country's human rights reputation and made nonsense of the argument that Canada's guiding Afghanistan purpose is to seed values, rights and justice.
Just so. Just as happened in Somalia. Mr. Travers sees the parallel between our missions in Somalia and Afghanistan, and lays the blame for any misdeeds not at the feet of our troops, but on the military and political leaders in Ottawa. Quite right he is.
Also on my recommended reading list today is "Advice for the PM", Norman Spector's blog in today's Globe and Mail. Mr. Spector castigates Defence Minister Peter Mackay and the Harper government's resident pit bull, John Baird, for their ad hominem attacks on Mr. Colvin. When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger, eh, boys?
Mr. Spector joins the Liberals and NDP in calling for a public enquiry, not into the conduct of our troops but into the sins of omission or commission of Conservative government. Mr. Travers agrees, and also has something to say about our commander-in-chief at the time, Gen. Rick Hillier.
When questioned about what happened in Afghanistan on his watch, Gen. Hillier responded (I'm paraphrasing here) that whatever we did, it wasn't as bad as what we did in Somalia, where Canadian troops exacted their own retribution on some Somali kids who were unlucky enough to get caught.
Gen. Hillier is proud that in Afghanistan our soldiers behaved in a more professional manner, by turning the prisoners over to their own people. But Travers argues that what should disturb us is the way the situation was handled -- or not handled -- by the military brass and mandarins in Ottawa.
"What's unfolding now is the same old story," Travers writes. "Distant events spiral out of control, secrecy silences truth and the messenger is humiliated, then shot." Shame!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)