• 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

Attaran is getting more than his 15 minutes, here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55639.0.html
and here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44610.0.html
and here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57138.0.html
and here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53734.0.html

I'm seeing a pattern of a self appointed guardian of both our Canadian tax dollars and Canadian ethics.  Is he worth anymore of my time reading his treatises of wrongs? Nope.  With all due respect to my learned friend, this is not the way to meet the publish or perish requirements of tenure nor is it sitting well with me that a lawyer, albeit a law professor, is attempting to drum up business - his demeanor with respects to his advocacy of the alledged prisoners if fraught with suspicion - he should know that attempting to plead on behalf of a straw client is a huge no no.   
 
I would like to echo the sentiments regarding Mr. Attaran's motives. That being said, I think the military needs to take a look and seen to be taking a look. It will cost money, but it's a worthwhile investment.  Nothing like a Royal Commission, just a public inquiry that can establish what happened.
 
Abuse?  Injured during capture in a combat operation? 

On CBC Newsworld this morning, retired MGen Lew McKenzie was quoted as saying "the fact is that I would guesstimate that least 50% of the players in the Super Bowl last Sunday had more injuries to them than these guys that were trying to escape".

Context is a great thing for a journalist to have.
 
Whats abuse when it comes to prisoners and war. I bruise..cut...I dont understand. I think its good that they are investigating it but even if they find nothing was done wrong by our troops...its still wont be enough for people. They'll just say the Forces are covering it up.
 
Just so folks know what is expected of a lawyer when advocating a cause, here's the commentary set out by the Law Society of Upper Canada on criticizing a Tribunal:

4.06 THE LAWYER AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encouraging Respect for the Administration of Justice

4.06 (1) A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.

Commentary

The obligation outlined in the rule is not restricted to the lawyer's professional activities but is a general responsibility resulting from the lawyer's position in the community. A lawyer's responsibilities are greater than those of a private citizen. A lawyer should take care not to weaken or destroy public confidence in legal institutions or authorities by irresponsible allegations. The lawyer in public life should be particularly careful in this regard because the mere fact of being a lawyer will lend weight and credibility to public statements. Yet for the same reason, a lawyer should not hesitate to speak out against an injustice.

The admission to and continuance in the practice of law implies on the part of a lawyer a basic commitment to the concept of equal justice for all within an open, ordered, and impartial system. However, judicial institutions will not function effectively unless they command the respect of the public, and, because of changes in human affairs and imperfections in human institutions, constant efforts must be made to improve the administration of justice and thereby maintain public respect for it.

Criticizing Tribunals - Although proceedings and decisions of courts and tribunals are properly subject to scrutiny and criticism by all members of the public, including lawyers, judges and members of tribunals are often prohibited by law or custom from defending themselves. Their inability to do so imposes special responsibilities upon lawyers. First, a lawyer should avoid criticism that is petty, intemperate, or unsupported by a bona fide belief in its real merit, bearing in mind that in the eyes of the public, professional knowledge lends weight to the lawyer's judgments or criticism. Second, if a lawyer has been involved in the proceedings, there is the risk that any criticism may be, or may appear to be, partisan rather than objective. Third, where a tribunal is the object of unjust criticism, a lawyer, as a participant in the administration of justice, is uniquely able to and should support the tribunal, both because its members cannot defend themselves and because in doing so the lawyer is contributing to greater public understanding of and therefore respect for the legal system.

And if seeking a change in legislation:Seeking Legislative or Administrative Changes

4.06 (2) A lawyer who seeks legislative or administrative changes shall disclose the interest being advanced, whether the lawyer's interest, the client's interest, or the public interest.

Commentary

The lawyer may advocate legislative or administrative changes on behalf of a client although not personally agreeing with them, but the lawyer who purports to act in the public interest should espouse only those changes that the lawyer conscientiously believes to be in the public interest.

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulation/a/profconduct/rule4/





 
He's not allowed to advocate for a cause as a "lawyer", because his status with the Law Society is "Not Practising Law- Employed".  He is a member of the bar however I don't think it is settled as a matter of consideration as to whether the rules cited below are applicable to a member not actively practising law but rather is engaged in legal academia. It seems to me that he or the media [or both] are using his legal credentials to add credibility to some form of an agenda with a fairly large anti-military bias. 


I would further add that in fact I did read this man's recent works and have viewed Mr. Staples follow on commentary. Arguably, there is now a sufficient avenue of legal recourse available to those members of the CF who have recently seen their reputations engaged by these two individuals through various allegations. What I find particularly enraging is the conveyance of the rather stupid and completely unfounded comparison of the present situation to what happened in Somalia years ago.     

 
A bit more info, this time from the CF:

Investigation Into Allegations of Detainee Abuse in Afghanistan
CFNIS (HQ) / CFNIS (QG) 2007-02 - February 6, 2007
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2189

OTTAWA – The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) is currently investigating allegations that detainees were physically abused by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, in the Spring of 2006.

The investigation began last week, within a day of the CF receiving a complaint through the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC). One of the allegations put forward is that some Afghan detainees were abused while in the custody of Canadian troops, pending their transfer to the appropriate authorities.

In accordance with its mandate, the NIS will look into this allegation to determine the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident.

As this matter is under investigation, no additional comment can be made on the specifics of this investigation.

The CFNIS is an independent military Police unit with a mandate to investigate serious and sensitive matters in relation to National Defence property, DND employees and CF personnel serving in Canada and abroad.

-  30 -

Board of Inquiry to examine detainee handling in Afghanistan
NR–07.003 - February 6, 2007
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2190

OTTAWA– General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, directed today that a Board of Inquiry (BOI) will be convened to investigate detainee handling by Canadian Forces members in Afghanistan and the circumstances regarding the transfer of three detainees from a Canadian field element to Military Police at Kandahar Airfield that took place April 6-8, 2006.

The BOI is separate from the ongoing military police investigation conducted by the Canadian Forces Investigation Service (CFNIS) into the same incident. As such, the BOI will be undertaken in a manner that ensures it does not interfere with the NIS investigation.

Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, Commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, responsible for all Canadian Forces (CF) operations overseas will be the convening authority for the BOI. As such, CEFCOM is responsible for issuing written Terms of Reference (ToR) for the BOI. The ToR will identify the officer that will preside over the BOI, its members and advisors, the security classification or designation and the scope under which the BOI will be responsible for investigating and providing findings and recommendations.

A BOI is an administrative inquiry normally convened to examine and report on complex or significant events. It serves to determine what occurred, how and why it occurred, looks for problems and proposes solutions to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. An administrative inquiry such as a BOI and a CFNIS investigation are distinctly different. In the case of CFNIS investigations, Military Police trained investigators assess evidence to determine if a criminal offence has occurred, and if there is sufficient evidence to lay charges. 

At the completion of the BOI, a report will be submitted to Lieutenant-General Gauthier for review after which it will be forwarded to the Chief of the Defence Staff. The findings, results, and recommendations will then be made public, subject to the limitations on the release of information imposed by the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

- 30 -
 
whiskey601 said:
...... It seems to me that he or the media [or both] are using his legal credentials to add credibility to some form of an agenda with a fairly large anti-military bias.  

That is my read on situation from the info provided.
 
Sounds spot on George. Another academic lefty with a personal agenda against the CF.  :threat:
 
2 Cdo said:
Sounds spot on George. Another academic lefty with a personal agenda against the CF.  :threat:

As I stated earlier there are rules for academics. These it seems he has just tossed to the wind. I wonder if this is because his peers would find his results wanting.
 
Purpose

A BOI is convened to inquire into any matter connected with the government, discipline, administration or functions of the CF or affecting any CF member. In short, it is a means of finding facts and obtaining recommendations in relation to any important matter.

When a member of the CF is injured or killed, a BOI is necessary to inform CF authorities, as a minimum, about the cause of the injury or death, whether the member was on duty at the time, whether a person is to blame for the injury or death, and whether the injury or death is attributable to military service.

Composition

A BOI is composed of 2 or more officers and may also include one or more non-commissioned members above the rank of sergeant. Normally, members of the BOI are military, but in exceptional circumstances, a civilian may be appointed. The BOI may be assisted by advisers.

The members of the BOI conduct the investigation and decide on findings and recommendations. The advisers assist the members by providing subject matter expertise and information that will assist the BOI in gathering and analyzing evidence.

Procedures

A BOI hears the oral evidence of witnesses, normally under oath, and receives documentation and other evidence necessary for a full investigation and consideration of the matter.

On completion of the inquiry, the BOI submits minutes of proceedings to the convening authority. These minutes include a narrative, a record of the testimony of witnesses, exhibits, a statement by the BOI, a summary of the evidence, findings and recommendations.

Witnesses

Under the National Defence Act, a witness who may be compelled under Canadian law to testify before a BOI is not excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate the witness. However, under that Act, the witness's response may not be used against him or her in another proceeding (including criminal trial or civil trial). This is because the BOI is an administrative investigation and is not intended to lead directly to disciplinary or criminal proceedings. This protection is consistent with section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi/back_e.asp
 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070206/afghan_probe_070206/20070206?hub=SEAfghanistan
O'Connor says military probing abuse allegations
Updated Tue. Feb. 6 2007 11:08 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says an investigation is underway into allegations that prisoners were abused while in the custody of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

O'Connor said Tuesday that the information uncovered during those investigations will be made public.  But the defence minister stressed that the probes haven't concluded yet that the allegations are warranted.  If the complaints are indeed substantiated, corrective action will be taken, O'Connor pledged.

University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran lodged a complaint in a letter sent to the Military Police Complaints Commission last week.

Attaran alleges that at least one, and as many as three, Afghan detainees "taken captive by the Canadian Forces appears to have been beaten while detained and interrogated by them."   The accusations are based on documents that Attaran obtained under the Access to Information Act.

"I discovered that on a single day last year (in April), a single interrogator working for the Canadian military brought three men to Kandahar Airfield," Attaran told Canada AM on Tuesday.

"All three of them had a similar set of injuries to their face, to their head and the most seriously injured man had his eyes swollen, cuts on his eyebrows, a slash across his forehead and a cut on his cheek."

Attaran said it seems the men never received proper medical attention before being handed off to the Afghans, never to be seen again.  He criticized the Canadian military for not having a mechanism in place to monitor what happens to released detainees.  "(It's) shocking because the Afghan government has acknowledged that torture is quite common in their custody," said Attaran. "We are handing detainees to known torturers and we are not apparently bothered enough to investigate what happens to them."

Commission chairman Peter Tinsley has notified by letter Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Capt. Steve Moore, who heads the military police, about the allegations.

"The complaint suggests various failings by the military police members involved relative to safeguarding the well-being of the persons in custody, and, more particularly, in respect of their failure to investigate the causes of various injuries which may have been sustained while in (Canadian Forces) as opposed to military police custody,'' Tinsley wrote on Jan. 30, reports the Toronto Star.

The three Afghans were captured near Dukah by a small group of Canadian soldiers.  One of the detainees was seen observing the soldiers but escaped, only to be captured the next day. In a field report, the soldiers described him as "non-compliant."

Another is described as being "extremely belligerent" and "it took four personnel to subdue him."

In the most serious instance, it was said that only "appropriate force" was used and that the suspect was an alleged bomb maker.

A military log says the detainee's injuries included bruises and cuts to his face, arm, back and chest. Some of the injuries were reportedly inflicted while the detainee's hands were tied behind his back.

With files from The Canadian Press
Still sounds like these guys were hurt because they decided to start fist fights to avoid being detained.

 
Some of the latest, with the first piece serving as a warning about communications people/spokespersons dealing with public enquiries.....

Detainee whistle blower's 'agenda' attacked
Naval officer tried to intimidate him, law professor says

Paul Koring, Globe & Mail, 8 Feb 07
Article Link - Permalink

The Ottawa law professor who sparked an investigation into the possible abuse of Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers says he was contacted by a senior naval officer yesterday who tried to intimidate him and impugn his motives.  The officer, Commander Denise LaViolette, a communications specialist for the military legal-affairs department and for the Provost Marshal, the military's chief of police, confirmed that when she returned a telephone call from Amir Attaran, she called him "unprofessional," questioned whether he "had a personal agenda" and eventually hung up on him after an acrimonious conversation.  Cdr. LaViolette's querying of Prof. Attaran's motives came a day after Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor assured Canadians that the government takes the abuse charges seriously.  Prof. Attaran had called Navy Captain Steve Moore, the Provost Marshal, to seek information related to the case.  "It sounded like she wanted to manage the problem by trying to intimidate me," Prof. Attaran said, adding that he found it insulting. "She was impugning my motives and believing that it was inappropriate of me" to have raised the issue of detainee abuse, he said ....


Story of abuse a distraction from key issue

Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, 8 Feb 07
Article Link

Before everyone goes nuts over the did-Canadians-abuse-Afghan-prisoners story, let's keep one thing in mind.  No one has claimed that Canadian Forces soldiers in Afghanistan roughed up prisoners in their charge. The three prisoners in question (wherever they are) haven't made that claim. Nor, unlike other cases involving disputes between Afghans and foreign troops, have their families or friends. Nor has a Canadian Forces whistle-blower at Kandahar or an investigative journalist or, indeed, anyone in Afghanistan.  Even the University of Ottawa human rights advocate who first raised this issue isn't saying that he necessarily believes the trio were beaten by Canadians. Law professor Amir Attaran is much more careful. All he said, in the complaint letter that finally brought this issue into the public domain this week, was that his reading of declassified military police logs "suggests" that the men were beaten.  Or, in other words, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.  Attaran, quite properly, asked the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent civilian oversight body, to do just that. It, equally properly, agreed. The embarrassed military brass then ordered two additional investigations.  In short, there are now three inquiries looking into whatever may or may not have happened after the three men were picked up by Canadian soldiers last April near a place called Dukah ....


Far-off war injures politicians at home
Jim Travers, Toronto Star, 8 Feb 07
Article Link

.... It's possible that the spin masters are accurately gauging public capacity for informed debate. Perhaps we are too distracted by daily life or too uninterested in the management of a shrinking planet to seriously consider why or how war emerges as the favoured option.  More certain is that limiting public discussion works better for politicians in the short- rather than the long-term.  While easily stirred by the beat of patriotic drums, opinion turns almost as quickly when things inevitably go wrong.  There is an alternative. Instead of selling war by disguising difficulties, demonizing the enemy and defining victory in absolute terms, governments can be honest about the limited effectiveness of force in modern conflicts, the political aspirations of insurgents and the inescapable 21st century reality that "winning" may be merely a positive adjustment to the status quo ....


 
So, what are we learning from this?

1.)We should not take prisoners but take afghan troops to take prisoners for us(if at all)?
2.)Bombs are not necessary for insurgents to attack canadian troops, they can do it from their canadian university?
3.)Amir Attaran is the pashtun word for "add me to the no fly list"?

Allah sure has blessed us with this guy, thanks immigration canada!
 
This is bull:

"All three of them had a similar set of injuries to their face, to their head and the most seriously injured man had his eyes swollen, cuts on his eyebrows, a slash across his forehead and a cut on his cheek."

Attaran said it seems the men never received proper medical attention before being handed off to the Afghans, never to be seen again.

Medical treatment for above:
an ice pack for his swollen eye and bandages for his cuts....what more would he want? Surgery?
 
  PROFESSOR AMIR ATTARAN

    Amir Attaran is by training both a biologist and lawyer, and currently Associate Professor
and Canada Research Chair at the Institute of Population Health and the Faculty of Law,
University of Ottawa, Canada.

    Prof. Attaran’s research emphasizes the subject of health, development and human
security in poor countries. His interests include: to study the scarcity of foreign financial
aid spent on controlling epidemic and pandemic diseases; to raise the standard of medical
technology and care for patients in the world’s poorest countries; and to apply Canadian
and international human rights law toward crises affecting transnational justice and
human security.

    Prof. Attaran’s peer-reviewed publications have appeared in the leading journals of both
the legal and biomedical professions, including the Yale Journal of International Law, the
Stanford Journal of International Law, The Lancet, Health Affairs, the Journal of the
American Medical Association, PLoS Medicine and many others. He is also the author of
a recent book (with Prof. Brigitte Granville) on access to medicines in developing
countries. Currently he is an Editorial Consultant to The Lancet, the world’s leading
medical journal.

    Prof. Attaran is a recognized authority on global development and governance issues.
His writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Financial Times, International
Herald Tribune, and the Globe and Mail, among others. He is also frequently quoted in
the print and broadcast media, and lectures widely to diverse audiences on public policy
and global development, including at events such as the International AIDS Conference,
the World Economic Forum in Davos, and the World Health Organization. He has
testified by invitation before Canada’s Parliament and the U.S. Senate.

    Prior to accepting his current position at the University of Ottawa, Professor Attaran held
fellowships and lectureships at Harvard University, Yale University, and the Royal
Institute of International Affairs in London. He trained at the University of California at
Berkeley (B.A.), Caltech (M.S.), Oxford University (D.Phil.), and the University of
British Columbia (LL.B.).

    Prof. Attaran has acted a policy advisor to numerous NGOs, the United Nations,
governments and corporations. His past pro bono or paid clients include the
Governments of Brazil and Malawi, Médecins Sans Frontières, Novartis, Pharmacia, the
Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the UN Development Program, and the World Bank.

    Finally, when Prof. Attaran is not in his office, he can frequently be found on a bicycle or
canoe in eastern Canada.
http://iwbconference.informationmanagement.dal.ca/AttaranBio.pdf

    A little background info on Prof Attaran. He definitely has an agenda. Perhaps he is even considering a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. He must love all the recent media attention. Good time to put out a book Prof! I'll buy the book to start my burn barrel!
 
Whether or not these enemy combatants were roughed up or not - I would not know BUT, given that they were taken prisoner while in a combat situation (people shooting at each other) our infantry doing it's damnedest to close with & defeat the enemy,  it is quite possible that disarming same said enemy combatant was the cause of same said injuries....  3 inquiries? 
Cheez! do you realise how many people that is going to tie up for do you know how long?.... Oy vey - pass the Advil AND the Tylenol
 
Perhaps we should give the good Professor cab fare and send him over to investigate.  I hear that the three 'detainees' can not be found.  Perhaps he can go look them up.
 
The plot thickens....

From Today's Globe and Mail
Shared under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC


Detainee whistle blower's 'agenda' attacked
Naval officer tried to intimidate him, law professor says
PAUL KORING

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

The Ottawa law professor who sparked an investigation into the possible abuse of Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers says he was contacted by a senior naval officer Wednesday who tried to intimidate him and impugn his motives.

The officer, Commander Denise LaViolette, a communications specialist for the military legal-affairs department and for the Provost Marshal, the military's chief of police, confirmed that when she returned a telephone call from Amir Attaran, she called him “unprofessional,” questioned whether he “had a personal agenda” and eventually hung up on him after an acrimonious conversation.

Cdr. LaViolette's querying of Prof. Attaran's motives came a day after Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor assured Canadians that the government takes the abuse charges seriously.

Prof. Attaran had called Navy Captain Steve Moore, the Provost Marshal, to seek information related to the case.
“It sounded like she wanted to manage the problem by trying to intimidate me,” Prof. Attaran said, adding that he found it insulting. “She was impugning my motives and believing that it was inappropriate of me” to have raised the issue of detainee abuse, he said.

Cdr. LaViolette, a veteran media specialist, denied her telephone call was an attempt to intimidate.

“I have never made any threats or tried to intimidate anyone,” she said in an interview.

But in an e-mail, she confirmed telling Prof. Attaran, who holds a Canada Research Chair at the University of Ottawa, that “he was not behaving like a professional.”

The Canadian Forces media office provided no response to written questions from The Globe and Mail about whether Cdr. LaViolette's views reflect the official position of the Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier or the Canadian Forces.

Only a day earlier, in announcing that he was ordering a full-blown board of inquiry into the incidents questioned by Prof. Attaran, Gen. Hillier said “the allegations of misconduct and detainee abuse are taken very seriously by both myself and my subordinate commanders.” Gen. Hillier sent Prof. Attaran a copy of that letter. It was a formal reply to the Military Police Complaints Commission, which had received the file outlining the allegations from Prof. Attaran.

Capt. Moore ordered another investigation by a special police unit known as the National Investigative Service, “into potential offences related to the treatment of detainees.” Capt. Moore also asked the Military Police Complaints Commission to delay any public-interest probe it might launch until the NIS investigation was complete. He sent Prof. Attaran a copy of that letter.

Prof. Attaran said that he had tried to contact Capt. Moore after receiving his letter to better understand the call for delay before making the submission to the MPCC that he had been requested to make by its chairman, Peter Tinsley. He left a telephone message at the Provost Marshal's office late Tuesday evening.

“Out of the kindness of my heart, I called him back,” Cdr. LaViolette said Wednesday. She said “nobody knew I was calling him back.” Cdr. LaViolette said she asked Prof. Attaran whether “he had an agenda” because he had been saying he “didn't trust” the military to investigate itself.

Cdr. LaViolette said she had a witness to her half of the conversation but declined to provide any details except to say “that person is a member of my staff.” In her e-mail, Cdr. LaViolette said she told Prof. Attaran “it would not be appropriate at this time for [the Provost Marshal, Capt. Moore] to speak with him as he is the complainant in an ongoing MP investigation and that [Capt. Moore] is ultimately responsible for the investigation.”

Cdr. LaViolette said she was unaware that Capt. Moore had sent Prof. Attaran a copy of his correspondence with the MPCC.

Prof. Attaran insists that he has no agenda other than to alert the appropriate authorities to the possibility of wrongdoing.

“I have an obligation as a citizen,” he said. “I also have a super-added obligation as a lawyer to be vigilant of possible illegality; lawyers are officers of the court. And I have a further obligation as a professor, when it comes to sharing my research and educating policy makers and the public; research and education is what professors do.”

Cdr. LaViolette wasn't the first to sound a disparaging note about Prof. Attaran's efforts this week.

A day earlier, Mr. O'Connor said, “That's apparently his life. He does that sort of thing.”

The minister also said senior officers didn't know about the documents showing a pattern of suspicious injuries that Prof. Attaran found and that led to the criminal investigation and the board of inquiry.

“There are many, many activities going on inside the Defence Department and senior management is not aware of every activity going on inside the department,” he said.

 
Back
Top