- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What do you expect with the Ottowa/eastern Canada press? They're all Libs, and they resent that the Libs aren't in power any more so they think they're on a crusade. The Duffy show is a case in point, except for when they had Dave Rutherford on as a guest host and that will never happen again.
Before and just about right through the last election they were all over the "hidden agenda" and "scary" coverage and now they're trying to come up with something else.
Before and just about right through the last election they were all over the "hidden agenda" and "scary" coverage and now they're trying to come up with something else.
Canada to get access to detainees
TheStar.com - News April 25, 2007 Canadian Press
Article Link
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said today that Canada has reached an agreement with Afghan officials to check on the status of detainees.
He made the comment under intense questioning at the House of Commons foreign affairs committee today over what he knew about allegations of torture of detainees.
O’Connor said officials have negotiated a deal with the governor of Kandahar that will let them visit detainees handed over by Canadian troops.
O’Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper both insisted again today that they had no knowledge of any specific reports of abuse.
A newspaper report today said the Canadian embassy in Kabul warned the Conservative government last year about Afghanistan’s poor human-rights record and allegations of torture within the country’s justice system.
But Harper says that document is an annual report produced for the Foreign Affairs Department that talks about the general state of the Afghan prison system.
He acknowledged that there are “human rights challenges” in Afghanistan.
More on link
TheStar.com - News April 25, 2007 Canadian Press
Article Link
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said today that Canada has reached an agreement with Afghan officials to check on the status of detainees.
He made the comment under intense questioning at the House of Commons foreign affairs committee today over what he knew about allegations of torture of detainees.
O’Connor said officials have negotiated a deal with the governor of Kandahar that will let them visit detainees handed over by Canadian troops.
O’Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper both insisted again today that they had no knowledge of any specific reports of abuse.
A newspaper report today said the Canadian embassy in Kabul warned the Conservative government last year about Afghanistan’s poor human-rights record and allegations of torture within the country’s justice system.
But Harper says that document is an annual report produced for the Foreign Affairs Department that talks about the general state of the Afghan prison system.
He acknowledged that there are “human rights challenges” in Afghanistan.
More on link
Torture part of life in Afghanistan: Khan
Updated Wed. Apr. 25 2007 4:36 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link
OTTAWA -- Torture is just part of the grinding conditions faced daily in Afghanistan's "tribal culture," suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Mideast adviser.
Wajid Khan says he doesn't support that kind of abuse, but life isn't easy in the impoverished country torn apart by almost 30 years of war. "Keep in mind it is Afghanistan we're talking about," he said Wednesday in a brief interview.
"Every day people that are living over there are living in substandard conditions."
The Conservative government is on the defensive amid reports that dozens of Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops were allegedly tortured by Afghan interrogators.
Khan says at least some of those prisoners might have been shot on the spot had they been detained by other parties instead of Canadian soldiers.
"They might have saved their lives, because had the other parties found them first, they would've probably shot them. These things happen in those tribal cultures.
"But I'm not supporting it. There should be no torture. It is not acceptable, and the government is doing as much as (it) can."
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is under increasing pressure to resign after misleading MPs about the government's ability to ensure detainees aren't abused in Afghan custody.
Published reports have chronicled disturbing allegations from Afghans who say they were whipped with electric cables and beaten by Afghan interrogators before being released.
More on link
Updated Wed. Apr. 25 2007 4:36 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link
OTTAWA -- Torture is just part of the grinding conditions faced daily in Afghanistan's "tribal culture," suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Mideast adviser.
Wajid Khan says he doesn't support that kind of abuse, but life isn't easy in the impoverished country torn apart by almost 30 years of war. "Keep in mind it is Afghanistan we're talking about," he said Wednesday in a brief interview.
"Every day people that are living over there are living in substandard conditions."
The Conservative government is on the defensive amid reports that dozens of Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops were allegedly tortured by Afghan interrogators.
Khan says at least some of those prisoners might have been shot on the spot had they been detained by other parties instead of Canadian soldiers.
"They might have saved their lives, because had the other parties found them first, they would've probably shot them. These things happen in those tribal cultures.
"But I'm not supporting it. There should be no torture. It is not acceptable, and the government is doing as much as (it) can."
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is under increasing pressure to resign after misleading MPs about the government's ability to ensure detainees aren't abused in Afghan custody.
Published reports have chronicled disturbing allegations from Afghans who say they were whipped with electric cables and beaten by Afghan interrogators before being released.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So what the human rights advocates are really saying is that it's alright to shoot and kill these taliban, but its not alright to spare their lives, capture them and hand them over to the Afghanistan authorities for fear they will be tortured. If these yokels worked for me i would have fired their sorry a**** long time ago for stealing money from me, if that's the only pathetic argument they could have come up with.
Can't have it both ways people. Either you shoot them or you turn them over. And we all know what would happen if it were the latter.
I really wish these people would get their heads out of their arse and take a good hard look at where this is all taking place. Its a stones throw back to before the dark ages. These people have lived this way for a thousand years and voila just like magic you expect to go in and change the mindset of an entire culture overnight. Some of these people have never seen a westerner before we arrived. But hey who are we to question a panel of supposedly highly educated people. But remember this yokels a PHD can't take the place of cruel hard reality. So go back to your private clubs, cognac parties and to your fantasy world, because it doesn't exist out here, especially not in a country called Afghanistan.
Give me a break and quit stealing my air...
Can't have it both ways people. Either you shoot them or you turn them over. And we all know what would happen if it were the latter.
I really wish these people would get their heads out of their arse and take a good hard look at where this is all taking place. Its a stones throw back to before the dark ages. These people have lived this way for a thousand years and voila just like magic you expect to go in and change the mindset of an entire culture overnight. Some of these people have never seen a westerner before we arrived. But hey who are we to question a panel of supposedly highly educated people. But remember this yokels a PHD can't take the place of cruel hard reality. So go back to your private clubs, cognac parties and to your fantasy world, because it doesn't exist out here, especially not in a country called Afghanistan.
Give me a break and quit stealing my air...
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/207417
Who's watching the generals?
TheStar.com - News - Who's watching the generals?
April 26, 2007
James Travers
OTTAWA–At the centre of the first crisis to threaten Stephen Harper's government is a failure to impose adequate civilian oversight on a military at war. Generals who considered Afghanistan prisoners merely a nuisance had unusual freedom in crafting an agreement that sacrificed safeguards for convenience.
"The military never saw the detainees as a problem," says a source with intimate knowledge of the defence department process. "They saw them as a nuisance that would blow up in the press from time to time."
The high command was half right. The treatment of prisoners captured by Canadians and handed over to the Afghan army is again exploding, this time spectacularly. But more than a passing annoyance, it's putting Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in jeopardy and dripping acid on already frayed public support for a mission that has claimed 55 Canadian lives.
Almost as troubling for the Prime Minister are the fissures now appearing in a government tightly under his control. Official Ottawa isn't just talking, it's furiously leaking.
Drip by drip, the deepening information pool is drowning any remaining Conservative hopes of taking advantage of Liberal disarray in a spring election. More importantly, it's the source of questions the government doesn't want to answer.
The most hazardous come from a foreign affairs report warning that Afghan prisoners were at risk of abuse, torture and even murder. A heavily edited public version is more positive, but the clandestine copy raises fears for prisoner safety while suggesting that the government is either downplaying or hiding the dangers.
What's now becoming clearer is this: Politicians and civil servants allowed the military extraordinary freedom in striking a late 2005 agreement on the transfer and treatment of prisoners. Finalized in the dying days of Paul Martin's administration and signed in the frenzied run-up to the last election, the document was drafted within the defence department and signed by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.
Two elements warrant special attention. One is that the agreement is between the two militaries, not the two governments. The other is that the foreign affairs department – the apparent source of the leaked report – wasn't involved in any significant way.
Of the two, the first is intriguing, the second is more significant. It's symptomatic of a trend that began with Liberals, is accelerating under the Conservatives and helps explain why military concerns were more central to the agreement than human rights.
According to sources, that was so pronounced that extending Geneva Convention protection to prisoners was an afterthought inserted only at the insistence of then defence minister Bill Graham. Even so, the military priority was to dump its detainees on the Afghan army as quickly and with as little public fuss as possible and, most of all, avoid operating its own jail.
Those priorities have been preoccupations of armed forces since at least 2002 when a photograph showing Joint Task Force 2 soldiers with Afghan prisoners sparked a political firestorm. Along with putting the lie to Liberal claims that Canada had not taken prisoners, it exposed Ottawa's policy of turning them over to a U.S. administration operating notorious detention centres.
One ad-hoc defence department solution was to let Afghans operating alongside Canadian troops take control of prisoners. But suspicions about abuse and concerns over Canada's legal liabilities persuaded the Liberal government to move to a formal agreement.
But it and Conservative efforts failed to provide durable guarantees. More damaging politically, O'Connor didn't understand the agreement and earlier this year was forced to apologize to the House of Commons for misleading it about the role of the International Red Cross.
These are multifaceted issues, and the failures now inflaming parliamentary debate have more than one cause. Still, there is an identifiable pattern.
One repeating part is profound military resistance to civilian control. It's understandable – if hardly acceptable in a democracy – that soldiers don't welcome what they dismiss as amateur oversight of technical operations involving life and death.
Harper compounded that problem when he appointed as defence minister a bumbling former Cold War general and arms industry lobbyist. As well as a political embarrassment, O'Connor is proving too weak to exert much control over Hillier, who is enormously popular with the troops and, in a break with Canadian tradition, a willing and powerful political player.
Adding other layers of complexity, Harper is using the Afghanistan mission as a wedge political issue. The unforeseen result is increasingly damaging to the Prime Minister.
O'Connor's performance doesn't instil public confidence, questions linger about what the government knew, or wanted to know, about prisoner abuse and there are even more disturbing doubts about political as well as bureaucratic control over the military. A prime minister positioned far above his cabinet and party must now answer those questions and dispel those doubts if he is to control the damage of this government's first crisis.
I watched O'Connor yesterday being questioned in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. The man is in over his head politically, rigid and brittle to most aggressive questions. Meanwhile Hillier was smooth and unflappable. Even the JAG officer was comfortable answering questions and was in command of his portfolio.
Sorry but it's time for O'Connor to go. Guess it proves the old adage mentioned here that you never put a military man in charge of Defence.
Who's watching the generals?
TheStar.com - News - Who's watching the generals?
April 26, 2007
James Travers
OTTAWA–At the centre of the first crisis to threaten Stephen Harper's government is a failure to impose adequate civilian oversight on a military at war. Generals who considered Afghanistan prisoners merely a nuisance had unusual freedom in crafting an agreement that sacrificed safeguards for convenience.
"The military never saw the detainees as a problem," says a source with intimate knowledge of the defence department process. "They saw them as a nuisance that would blow up in the press from time to time."
The high command was half right. The treatment of prisoners captured by Canadians and handed over to the Afghan army is again exploding, this time spectacularly. But more than a passing annoyance, it's putting Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in jeopardy and dripping acid on already frayed public support for a mission that has claimed 55 Canadian lives.
Almost as troubling for the Prime Minister are the fissures now appearing in a government tightly under his control. Official Ottawa isn't just talking, it's furiously leaking.
Drip by drip, the deepening information pool is drowning any remaining Conservative hopes of taking advantage of Liberal disarray in a spring election. More importantly, it's the source of questions the government doesn't want to answer.
The most hazardous come from a foreign affairs report warning that Afghan prisoners were at risk of abuse, torture and even murder. A heavily edited public version is more positive, but the clandestine copy raises fears for prisoner safety while suggesting that the government is either downplaying or hiding the dangers.
What's now becoming clearer is this: Politicians and civil servants allowed the military extraordinary freedom in striking a late 2005 agreement on the transfer and treatment of prisoners. Finalized in the dying days of Paul Martin's administration and signed in the frenzied run-up to the last election, the document was drafted within the defence department and signed by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.
Two elements warrant special attention. One is that the agreement is between the two militaries, not the two governments. The other is that the foreign affairs department – the apparent source of the leaked report – wasn't involved in any significant way.
Of the two, the first is intriguing, the second is more significant. It's symptomatic of a trend that began with Liberals, is accelerating under the Conservatives and helps explain why military concerns were more central to the agreement than human rights.
According to sources, that was so pronounced that extending Geneva Convention protection to prisoners was an afterthought inserted only at the insistence of then defence minister Bill Graham. Even so, the military priority was to dump its detainees on the Afghan army as quickly and with as little public fuss as possible and, most of all, avoid operating its own jail.
Those priorities have been preoccupations of armed forces since at least 2002 when a photograph showing Joint Task Force 2 soldiers with Afghan prisoners sparked a political firestorm. Along with putting the lie to Liberal claims that Canada had not taken prisoners, it exposed Ottawa's policy of turning them over to a U.S. administration operating notorious detention centres.
One ad-hoc defence department solution was to let Afghans operating alongside Canadian troops take control of prisoners. But suspicions about abuse and concerns over Canada's legal liabilities persuaded the Liberal government to move to a formal agreement.
But it and Conservative efforts failed to provide durable guarantees. More damaging politically, O'Connor didn't understand the agreement and earlier this year was forced to apologize to the House of Commons for misleading it about the role of the International Red Cross.
These are multifaceted issues, and the failures now inflaming parliamentary debate have more than one cause. Still, there is an identifiable pattern.
One repeating part is profound military resistance to civilian control. It's understandable – if hardly acceptable in a democracy – that soldiers don't welcome what they dismiss as amateur oversight of technical operations involving life and death.
Harper compounded that problem when he appointed as defence minister a bumbling former Cold War general and arms industry lobbyist. As well as a political embarrassment, O'Connor is proving too weak to exert much control over Hillier, who is enormously popular with the troops and, in a break with Canadian tradition, a willing and powerful political player.
Adding other layers of complexity, Harper is using the Afghanistan mission as a wedge political issue. The unforeseen result is increasingly damaging to the Prime Minister.
O'Connor's performance doesn't instil public confidence, questions linger about what the government knew, or wanted to know, about prisoner abuse and there are even more disturbing doubts about political as well as bureaucratic control over the military. A prime minister positioned far above his cabinet and party must now answer those questions and dispel those doubts if he is to control the damage of this government's first crisis.
I watched O'Connor yesterday being questioned in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. The man is in over his head politically, rigid and brittle to most aggressive questions. Meanwhile Hillier was smooth and unflappable. Even the JAG officer was comfortable answering questions and was in command of his portfolio.
Sorry but it's time for O'Connor to go. Guess it proves the old adage mentioned here that you never put a military man in charge of Defence.
- Reaction score
- 5,522
- Points
- 1,360
Quote,
"The military never saw the detainees as a problem," says a source with intimate knowledge of the defence department process. "They saw them as a nuisance that would blow up in the press from time to time."
Quote,
According to sources, that was so pronounced that extending Geneva Convention protection to prisoners was an afterthought inserted only at the insistence of then defence minister Bill Graham.
Yup, the old "according to sources",..........mediaspeak for I can lie, cheat and make things up as I wish.
JT, methinks you needed a column, any column, about this *cough* story and well, since you had no one who would actually talk to you..........
"The military never saw the detainees as a problem," says a source with intimate knowledge of the defence department process. "They saw them as a nuisance that would blow up in the press from time to time."
Quote,
According to sources, that was so pronounced that extending Geneva Convention protection to prisoners was an afterthought inserted only at the insistence of then defence minister Bill Graham.
Yup, the old "according to sources",..........mediaspeak for I can lie, cheat and make things up as I wish.
JT, methinks you needed a column, any column, about this *cough* story and well, since you had no one who would actually talk to you..........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ok, so yet another journalist is attempting to have their name put up for a Pulitzer for investigative journalism...(didn't realize that there was a particular category for "journalists that find those amazing hidden and secret sources").
Along with the rest of this journalist's peers are those professor's professing their expertise (it's an inside academic joke) who are also now jumping, no leaping on the band wagon and tripping over each other to get the scoop and in their case, the proverbial cash cow of a research grant. I think what is most disappointing to me about this type of journalism and academia is that they are *all* late for the party and don't realize it.
In 1994, two Calgary women (W4WAfghanistan) noticed what was going on in Afghanistan and tried to sound the alarms. They were ridiculed and ignored by these very journalists and academics as radical feminists - some even called them bored haus fraus. In 1928, Afghan women were at risk as their King abdicated power over to tribal authority. Not one western journalist raised a typewriter key over that. In 1978, when the Communist People's Democratic Party came to power, Professors barely registered, if at all, that in their lectures on International law. No one in the western journalism field thought that in 1980, there might be a continuing problem with the rise of the Mujahidin, it was considered a good thing as long as they dealt a blow to the Soviets. I haven't seen any of these journalists citing from the works of Guglielmo Verdirame, Valentine M. Moghadam or the numerous reports such as the 1999 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women- Mission to Pakistan and Afghanistan all of which were trying to address the ills of Afghanistan society.
If they want to read about human rights abuses, let them all run off to the libraries and read the literature and scholarship from the 80s and 90s. There are many more real sources there than JT or any other journalist could ever come up as his/their hidden sources. Now in 2007 after they have all been late for the party, these journalists and academics are trying to catch our attention by putting a spin on their late stories to make it appear we, Canadians, are at at fault.
I see the only award this kind of journalism is going to get is the famed Putz Prize.
Along with the rest of this journalist's peers are those professor's professing their expertise (it's an inside academic joke) who are also now jumping, no leaping on the band wagon and tripping over each other to get the scoop and in their case, the proverbial cash cow of a research grant. I think what is most disappointing to me about this type of journalism and academia is that they are *all* late for the party and don't realize it.
In 1994, two Calgary women (W4WAfghanistan) noticed what was going on in Afghanistan and tried to sound the alarms. They were ridiculed and ignored by these very journalists and academics as radical feminists - some even called them bored haus fraus. In 1928, Afghan women were at risk as their King abdicated power over to tribal authority. Not one western journalist raised a typewriter key over that. In 1978, when the Communist People's Democratic Party came to power, Professors barely registered, if at all, that in their lectures on International law. No one in the western journalism field thought that in 1980, there might be a continuing problem with the rise of the Mujahidin, it was considered a good thing as long as they dealt a blow to the Soviets. I haven't seen any of these journalists citing from the works of Guglielmo Verdirame, Valentine M. Moghadam or the numerous reports such as the 1999 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women- Mission to Pakistan and Afghanistan all of which were trying to address the ills of Afghanistan society.
If they want to read about human rights abuses, let them all run off to the libraries and read the literature and scholarship from the 80s and 90s. There are many more real sources there than JT or any other journalist could ever come up as his/their hidden sources. Now in 2007 after they have all been late for the party, these journalists and academics are trying to catch our attention by putting a spin on their late stories to make it appear we, Canadians, are at at fault.
I see the only award this kind of journalism is going to get is the famed Putz Prize.
I have to wonder, what exactly is the individual CF guy suppossed to do with a captured Taliban fighters? Should he kill them outright, as they were just recently trying to do to him? NO, not right, either morally, or under the Geneva convention rules.
Should he let them go? Not right either.
Should he follow orders and turn them over to the Afghans ? Yes. Can he control what happens to them afterwards ? No.
Does he know that the Afghans have a 180 degree opposite idea about " human rights" than we do ? Yes. Can we affect that, as a military force.? Probably not. Can we pressure the Afghans to "clean up their act " Yes, we can, but they don't have to listen to us.
Should the CF attempt to place "monitors " in the Afghan prisons? You tell me your thoughts on this one? Could the Red Crescent do that job of monitoring prisoner treatment ?
And finally, who is going to "set the media straight " about this topic? In my opinion, the vast majority of the Canadian media, both in Canada, and in Afghanistan, are so off base at to be considered " defeatists " and at the very least are putting out a very skewed version of the facts. Not all, but most.
Jim B. Toronto.
Should he let them go? Not right either.
Should he follow orders and turn them over to the Afghans ? Yes. Can he control what happens to them afterwards ? No.
Does he know that the Afghans have a 180 degree opposite idea about " human rights" than we do ? Yes. Can we affect that, as a military force.? Probably not. Can we pressure the Afghans to "clean up their act " Yes, we can, but they don't have to listen to us.
Should the CF attempt to place "monitors " in the Afghan prisons? You tell me your thoughts on this one? Could the Red Crescent do that job of monitoring prisoner treatment ?
And finally, who is going to "set the media straight " about this topic? In my opinion, the vast majority of the Canadian media, both in Canada, and in Afghanistan, are so off base at to be considered " defeatists " and at the very least are putting out a very skewed version of the facts. Not all, but most.
Jim B. Toronto.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
jimb...
it's one hell of a big hot potato IMHO
Am confused by what the MND was saying yesterday though... we do (or don't) have an agreement with the Afghan prisons to monitor.
The CF or someone else (definitively someone else per CDS) will have visiting rights.
Oy Vey!
Pass the Excedrin!
it's one hell of a big hot potato IMHO
Am confused by what the MND was saying yesterday though... we do (or don't) have an agreement with the Afghan prisons to monitor.
The CF or someone else (definitively someone else per CDS) will have visiting rights.
Oy Vey!
Pass the Excedrin!
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
From the ctv.ca website at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070425/afghanistan_abuse_070426/20070426?hub=TopStories
Canada's top soldier says he is paying little attention to reports that two human rights professors have requested The Hague investigate the possibility he has committed war crimes.
Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Defence Minsiter (sic) Gordon O'Connor have both been named in a 14-page letter to the International Criminal Court by Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia and William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway.
The professors claim "possible war crimes" have been committed by Hillier and O'Connor, resulting from the prisoner transfer agreement between Canada and Afghanistan, and have asked the ICC to investigate.
On Wednesday, controversy arose over the agreement amid reports that Canadian officials knew prisoners captured by Canadians and handed over to Afghans security forces were at risk of torture, abuse and even execution.
Later the same day, O'Connor announced a new deal had been struck to allow Canadians to monitor the prisoners after they are transferred.
Hillier said he has more important things to worry about than the new accusations against him.
"I concentrate on setting our young men and women, Canada's sons and daughters, up for success," Hillier said Thursday on CTV's Canada AM.
"I concentrate on reducing the risk to them as they execute that mission on our behalf, and they do execute it very, very well and so I just let, if you will, the theatrics of these kinds of things go on around me. I've got a job to do. I'm going to do that job," he said.
Hillier said the new agreement to check up on prisoners is a positive step forward in an ever-evolving relationship.
"I think it's just a logical reaction to some allegations that have taken place. And I think it's a good response to say, we'll just be more transparent and more clear going forward from here. I thought it was a very logical step and obviously we're ready to support," Hillier said.
The Globe and Mail revealed Wednesday that the federal government has received a report that raises alarm bells over the treatment of prisoners handed to Afghan security forces -- a document that officials first denied existed.
In the wake of the report in The Globe, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told a foreign affairs committee on Wednesday that officials have now struck the new deal with the governor of Kandahar that will let them visit Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops.
Hillier, who signed the original handover agreement in 2005, lauded the development.
He said the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan will continue to provide mentoring within the prison system in Kandahar, but experts from Corrections Canada and the RCMP will take the lead on ensuring detainees are well treated.
Canadian troops will not be directly involved in entering Afghan prisons and monitoring prisoners, however. He said the troops' responsibility ends when the detainees are handed over.
"It's very much a supportive role. We do what is necessary to help the transparency and help ensure allegations like this are not going to be part of the future because there will be eyes on, if you will. It's very much a supportive role from the soldier's perspective," Hillier said.
He pointed out that the other NATO countries working in Afghanistan, and NATO itself, have similar policies to hand detainees over to the Afghan security forces.
"All of them do it with some confidence and an increasing engagement to build the capacity of the Afghan government to be able to handle people better, set up the appropriate prison systems," Hillier said.
He also pointed out that Afghanistan has an elected government, and is responsible to ensure its prisoners are treated well. Hillier added that he is not phased by the ongoing controversy.
Allegations rejected
On Wednesday, both O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected suggestions that the government intentionally buried the fact it was aware of allegations that prisoners were being abused in the hands of Afghan authorities.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion asked Harper during question period on Wednesday why he withheld the information that he had on received the "damning report."
But Harper insisted his government received no specific reports on possible abuse of captured Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
The prime minister said the document mentioned in the newspaper is an annual report produced for the Foreign Affairs Department that talks about the general state of the Afghan prison system.
However, he said the government has no evidence of specific allegations of abuse.
Answering a question in French, Harper conceded there are "human rights challenges'' in Afghanistan.
Canada's top soldier says he is paying little attention to reports that two human rights professors have requested The Hague investigate the possibility he has committed war crimes.
Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Defence Minsiter (sic) Gordon O'Connor have both been named in a 14-page letter to the International Criminal Court by Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia and William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway.
The professors claim "possible war crimes" have been committed by Hillier and O'Connor, resulting from the prisoner transfer agreement between Canada and Afghanistan, and have asked the ICC to investigate.
On Wednesday, controversy arose over the agreement amid reports that Canadian officials knew prisoners captured by Canadians and handed over to Afghans security forces were at risk of torture, abuse and even execution.
Later the same day, O'Connor announced a new deal had been struck to allow Canadians to monitor the prisoners after they are transferred.
Hillier said he has more important things to worry about than the new accusations against him.
"I concentrate on setting our young men and women, Canada's sons and daughters, up for success," Hillier said Thursday on CTV's Canada AM.
"I concentrate on reducing the risk to them as they execute that mission on our behalf, and they do execute it very, very well and so I just let, if you will, the theatrics of these kinds of things go on around me. I've got a job to do. I'm going to do that job," he said.
Hillier said the new agreement to check up on prisoners is a positive step forward in an ever-evolving relationship.
"I think it's just a logical reaction to some allegations that have taken place. And I think it's a good response to say, we'll just be more transparent and more clear going forward from here. I thought it was a very logical step and obviously we're ready to support," Hillier said.
The Globe and Mail revealed Wednesday that the federal government has received a report that raises alarm bells over the treatment of prisoners handed to Afghan security forces -- a document that officials first denied existed.
In the wake of the report in The Globe, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told a foreign affairs committee on Wednesday that officials have now struck the new deal with the governor of Kandahar that will let them visit Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops.
Hillier, who signed the original handover agreement in 2005, lauded the development.
He said the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan will continue to provide mentoring within the prison system in Kandahar, but experts from Corrections Canada and the RCMP will take the lead on ensuring detainees are well treated.
Canadian troops will not be directly involved in entering Afghan prisons and monitoring prisoners, however. He said the troops' responsibility ends when the detainees are handed over.
"It's very much a supportive role. We do what is necessary to help the transparency and help ensure allegations like this are not going to be part of the future because there will be eyes on, if you will. It's very much a supportive role from the soldier's perspective," Hillier said.
He pointed out that the other NATO countries working in Afghanistan, and NATO itself, have similar policies to hand detainees over to the Afghan security forces.
"All of them do it with some confidence and an increasing engagement to build the capacity of the Afghan government to be able to handle people better, set up the appropriate prison systems," Hillier said.
He also pointed out that Afghanistan has an elected government, and is responsible to ensure its prisoners are treated well. Hillier added that he is not phased by the ongoing controversy.
Allegations rejected
On Wednesday, both O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected suggestions that the government intentionally buried the fact it was aware of allegations that prisoners were being abused in the hands of Afghan authorities.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion asked Harper during question period on Wednesday why he withheld the information that he had on received the "damning report."
But Harper insisted his government received no specific reports on possible abuse of captured Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
The prime minister said the document mentioned in the newspaper is an annual report produced for the Foreign Affairs Department that talks about the general state of the Afghan prison system.
However, he said the government has no evidence of specific allegations of abuse.
Answering a question in French, Harper conceded there are "human rights challenges'' in Afghanistan.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
War crimes, What a joke do this guys really know what they are talking about?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
There's several things here.
All IMHO
First, CDS is quite right to say that his job is to ensure that the mission and the welfare of the troops is his primary responsibility. I watched him this morning (on NewsNet) and he was his usual straight shooting self. Whilst some may say he seemed combative (well, shyte, he's a soldier...) I think he made it quite clear that the system will deal with the issue and he will stick to his job. After all his mandate is a few feet wide and several miles deep. The broader strokes on this issue must be dealt with by the government as a whole.
I wonder how quickly DFAIT will step up to the plate on this. After all in the 'three D' scenario , is not 'development' and 'diplomacy' a DFAIT thing? Is not the development of the rule of law, civil law I mean, under those other "D's".
I fully accept that the situation has evolved and that the government has reacted appropriately. I wonder though, at a Ministry, (knowing full well that a couple of contrarian legalists and the Globe and Mail were "gnawing on a bone") that seems so intransigent.
Why could the government, knowing full well that this issue was beginning to boil, have not gotten this new agreement a week (month? year?) ago?
Finally of course, the whole issue is now on fire. No independant confirmation of these stories seem to be presented, but it won't matter. Recommending charges to an international tribune is a grandstand, but it won't matter. Even if it were a fact, what difference does it make? (30 guys got beat up by the cops in a country coming out of 35 years of civil war..come on !) the real progress is being made, but that won't matter either.
How dangerous is this whole affair to the mission?
All IMHO
First, CDS is quite right to say that his job is to ensure that the mission and the welfare of the troops is his primary responsibility. I watched him this morning (on NewsNet) and he was his usual straight shooting self. Whilst some may say he seemed combative (well, shyte, he's a soldier...) I think he made it quite clear that the system will deal with the issue and he will stick to his job. After all his mandate is a few feet wide and several miles deep. The broader strokes on this issue must be dealt with by the government as a whole.
I wonder how quickly DFAIT will step up to the plate on this. After all in the 'three D' scenario , is not 'development' and 'diplomacy' a DFAIT thing? Is not the development of the rule of law, civil law I mean, under those other "D's".
I fully accept that the situation has evolved and that the government has reacted appropriately. I wonder though, at a Ministry, (knowing full well that a couple of contrarian legalists and the Globe and Mail were "gnawing on a bone") that seems so intransigent.
Why could the government, knowing full well that this issue was beginning to boil, have not gotten this new agreement a week (month? year?) ago?
Finally of course, the whole issue is now on fire. No independant confirmation of these stories seem to be presented, but it won't matter. Recommending charges to an international tribune is a grandstand, but it won't matter. Even if it were a fact, what difference does it make? (30 guys got beat up by the cops in a country coming out of 35 years of civil war..come on !) the real progress is being made, but that won't matter either.
How dangerous is this whole affair to the mission?
If i had a say in this,................which I don't. I'd prefer to see the Red Crescent doing it, if only for the optics of having a Internationally recognised Muslim aid organisation doing the monitoring. Bearin mind that "prisoners " in a Afghan jail may very well be your ordinary garden variety thief or ner do well, not just a Taliban guy. They don't get any breaks either, in their day to day treatment. But what can you expect in a backward country, that has been ravaged by war over the past 30 years ?
My last thought is this....Is it just me, or does the "terrorist hand book " seem to have a page about "crying out about human rights and torture " as soon as they are caught ? Seems to be standard operating procedure, by now. And of course, trust the media to take the word of a terrorist, over what our CF guys might have to say about the subject. I too feel it is time to call a "terror supporter " by their full names. But perhaps not on this website. <grin>
Jim B.
My last thought is this....Is it just me, or does the "terrorist hand book " seem to have a page about "crying out about human rights and torture " as soon as they are caught ? Seems to be standard operating procedure, by now. And of course, trust the media to take the word of a terrorist, over what our CF guys might have to say about the subject. I too feel it is time to call a "terror supporter " by their full names. But perhaps not on this website. <grin>
Jim B.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
jimb said:
I think there has been enough information available to state that torture is taking place. The question before the public is how should the government of Canada respond.
One should use caution with such a term as ""terror supporter " and in using it in this public forum to describe a member of the media.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just a little tidbit, a group in BC called Lawyers Against the War attempted in 2004 to petition the International courts to have President George Bush charged with war crimes. They failed miserably. This latest attempt is striking me as a copy cat to something that has already been done.
The credibility of these groups in my opinion, is sinking fast and these press conferences, motions, litigation are attempts to excuse themselves for being late for the party as well as perhaps secure donations, grants or funding from an international agency(ies).
However, that said, this latest attempt to tar and feather the CDS and Min of Def, may very well prove to attract the opposite effect these groups are looking for and that is, civilian support for the mission and these leaders.
The credibility of these groups in my opinion, is sinking fast and these press conferences, motions, litigation are attempts to excuse themselves for being late for the party as well as perhaps secure donations, grants or funding from an international agency(ies).
However, that said, this latest attempt to tar and feather the CDS and Min of Def, may very well prove to attract the opposite effect these groups are looking for and that is, civilian support for the mission and these leaders.
