<strong>Written By:</strong> N Say
<strong>Date:</strong> 2008-01-24 11:36:19
<a href="/article/19494185-ottawa-quietly-changes-afghan-detainee-policy">Article Link</a>

The two groups are seeking an injunction against the federal government that would stop the Canadian Forces from transferring prisoners captured in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities over concerns that they would be abused.

But with the disclosure of this letter, it appears Canada has voluntarily stopped the transfers - but the government has apparently not publicized this.

"Canadian authorities were informed on November 5, 2007, by Canada's monitoring team, of a credible allegation of mistreatment pertaining to one Canadian-transferred detainee held in an Afghan detention facility," says the letter, dated Tuesday, and written by senior Justice Department lawyer J. Sanderson Graham.

"As a consequence there have been no transfers of detainees to Afghan authorities since that date. The allegation is under investigation by Afghan authorities. Canada will resume transferring detainees when it believes it can do so in accordance with its international legal obligations."

Jason Gratl, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said it is unfortunate that the government has withheld important information about the detainees issue until the eve of a court hearing.

"The Canadian public has a right to know this information and shouldn't be hearing about it only because the government is being sued," said Gratl.

The letter contains no details about the Nov. 5 visit by Canadian authorities to the Afghan prison, or about the condition of the prisoner in question. But the incident appears to have arisen from one of the 30-plus spot checks of Afghan prisons conducted by Canadian officials as a result of a new May 2007 prisoner exchange agreement between the two governments.

The strengthened prisoner transfer agreement gave Canada more rights to conduct spot checks of Afghan prisons to follow up on the condition of detainees transferred there after being captured by Armed Forces personnel.

...


<a href="http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c2657d26-c947-48b8-a29b-d52cf3af1757">http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c2657d26-c947-48b8-a29b-d52cf3af1757</a>

   

""As a consequence there have been no transfers of detainees to Afghan authorities since that date. The allegation is under investigation by Afghan authorities. Canada will resume transferring detainees when it believes it can do so in accordance with its international legal obligations."

"Concerning the matter of detainees, the number of detainees, if they are being transferred or not, these are all operational matters and are the responsibility of the Canadian Forces," Buckler wrote.

Which begs the question - where are they now? Are Canadian Forces detaining them? American?

I'm very much against the torture of prisoners, and the Geneva Conventions say we must turn them over the the country of authority - unless they will be tortured. So, where are they? Are our soldiers being diverted from security for aid groups, to become babysitters?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

   

There is another question. Has the government been ordering the military to break the law by turning detainees over to the Afghan authorities when there is evidence of torture?

No one seems to dare bring up that question or respond to it? If the government was unaware of the change, as the PMO is claiming, why did the military see fit to keep them in the dark?

Was the military refusing to break their own ethical standards and their obligations under international law? Did the commanders see it as less damaging to quietly change their policy rather than to confront a government that was adament that their policy was to be carried out at all costs?

This issue is not all that different from what caused the conflict between the Prime Minister and Linda Keen. When an executive assumes the kind of power that our PM has assumed we have a major problem. The Prime Minister is not sovereign. Is it not the right of the public servant to refuse to break the law as it applies to them on the demand of the PM?

   

"Has the government been ordering the military to break the law by turning detainees over to the Afghan authorities when there is evidence of torture?

No one seems to dare bring up that question or respond to it?"

Well, yes. The question was brought up and responded to Nov 5th, 2007. The first evidence we had of torture, we stopped transferring prisoners. My question is - What are we doing with them?

"If the government was unaware of the change, as the PMO is claiming, why did the military see fit to keep them in the dark?"

The Canadian Military is not beholden to the Government, it is controlled by, and reports to, the State. That would be The Queen (or Governor General, in this case. Guess I'm going to have to repeat myself till everyone read it.) Want to bet the Defence Minister knew of it? (See: Chalk River)

"Was the military refusing to break their own ethical standards and their obligations under international law? Did the commanders see it as less damaging to quietly change their policy rather than to confront a government that was adament that their policy was to be carried out at all costs?"

That's unpossible. Could it be that General Hiller is not the puppet of Harper he's portrayed to be?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

   

I think it has been a long time since General Hillier has been a puppet of the Prime Minister. I believe that break was obvious the day that Defence Minister stood with Hillier and blamed him for the problems that became public about paying for the funerals of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

I am not sure how the opposition parties can continue to vote confidence in a government that has lost the confidence of the public service and, as it appears now, the military.

I guess it all somes down to the fear that the public has no more confidence in the opposition parties than the government.

There has been a gradual change in the relationship between the military and the government and unless you were asleep this has been quite evident. The problem is that Hillier needs to resign to make the point clear and that is what he would likely do in a normal situation. At the same time, as a good soldier, he knows that would destroy troop morale in a combat zone. Hillier must find himself between the rock and a hard place.

   

The soup thickens!<br />
<br />
"Opposition parties have accused the Tory government of hiding the truth to avoid political embarrassment, prompting Buckler to claim yesterday that the military had not informed the government about the decision.<br />
<br />
Sources at the Defence Department say military commanders were livid at the assertion and that the government was informed "promptly" after the transfers were halted.<br />
<br />
Liberal leader Stephane Dion says he learned more than a week ago that Canadian troops had stopped handing over captured Taliban fighters to local authorities."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/297512">http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/297512</a><br />
<br />
Dion knew a week ago! The PM knew right away! What a bunch of asshats!<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

   

Do you sometimes feel that we are all like "Alice in Wonderland": things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.

To cap it off, Peter VanLoan just told CBC "Politics" with Don Newman that the government policy has not changed and it is still to hand over detainees to the Afghan authorities (I take it whether they are tortured is not relevant) and that it is an operational decision not to turn them over (because the military has concerns they might be tortured).

Does this meant that the military is concerned about human rights but the government is not?

   

"Do you sometimes feel that we are all like "Alice in Wonderland": things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser."

Every freaking day.

I understand why my questions won't be answered. Operational security. If the military says 'they are at Kandahar airfield' then the airfield will be over run. With the Ghurkas and VanDoos teaming up, the Taliban would be wiped out, and no one would have a job left to do. (sarcasm, but you get the point).

"Does this meant that the military is concerned about human rights but the government is not?"

Wouldn't that be a poke in the eye! (Been saying it for years too, but no one believes me.)

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

   

"Wouldn't that be a poke in the eye! (Been saying it for years too, but no one believes me.)"

I sure hope that you are right, but if true, I'd expect to see at least a few high level resignations come to fruition in protest, else they remain a party to the crimes. Of course it's true that if the top levels start to fire off in protest, then the lower ranks will suffer, but they must already be suffering (certainly those who are getting blown up on an almost weekly basis) - and what about the Afghan people who, according to the latest propaganda, our troops are supposed to be protecting?

There's absolutely nothing good that can come out of Canada continuing to do the bidding of our America overlords, which is what the entire war is all about.