Afghan Detainee Mega Thread

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure the Canadian Press was alleging any wrongdoing; I think anything having to do with Afghan detainees is newsworthy for some of CP's subscribing journals and Afghan detainees plus CSIS plus some sensationalism from Wesley Wark makes a front page story for the reporters.

 

[GAP]

Frank Iacobucci no Tory lapdog

Justice is solid pick to review torture allegations

By Peter Worthington Last Updated: March 8, 2010
Article Link

If the federal government was hoping to cloud the issue of Taliban prisoners being tortured, it surely would not have appointed retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci to review which documents can be released.

Justice Iacobucci’s integrity is well established. In a previous case of Canadians of Arab decent being imprisoned abroad and tortured, he found fault with the way the Canadian government handled the case.

If the Harper government intended to advance an alleged coverup of whether Taliban prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers turned them over to the mercies of Afghan authorities, it’s unlikely it would have chosen Iacobucci to review pertinent documents.

A more pliant or cooperative justice would have been chosen.

Whatever subtleties Iacobucci may find in documents pertaining to prisoners, his overall concern will likely focus on whether Canadian soldiers abused or tortured Taliban insurgents it captured — not on what Afghanis do to one another.

The Opposition and human rights activists seem more concerned about what happens to Taliban prisoners, than what the Taliban were doing — or trying to do — to Canadian soldiers.

One hopes Iacobucci finds cause to remind Canadians that we are not trying to colonize Afghanistan, but our soldiers are there to help restore order, peace and establish a modicum of security. And we’ve done pretty well, so far.

It is unreasonable for opposition parties (primarily Jack Layton) to expect all documents on the matter to be opened to everyone. Especially MPs with axes to grind.

There may be security issues that are best kept confidential — not that it matters what Canadians know, but why inform the enemies of Canada about measures that may influence the war?

The whole question of whether prisoners turned over to the Afghans are tortured, has become political gamesmanship.

The government, by its initial denials of knowledge of possible abuse, taxed credulity and made a bit of an ass of itself.

It’s no secret Afghanistan is a primitive and rough place where rival factions treat one another with less than Marquis of Queensbury or Geneva Convention rules. For government politicians and some generals to pretend they weren’t aware of this is simply silly. And feeds the blood lust of the opposition.

One hopes Iacobucci brings perspective to the issue, and encourages sanity to return to Parliament.
More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

Let's see who ELSE chases this one - this, from CBC.ca:

A Canadian diplomat with extensive experience in Afghanistan says she raised the possibility that detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody were at risk of torture back in 2005, but her concerns were ignored.

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Eillen Olexiuk, who arrived in Afghanistan in 2002 and was second in command at the Canadian Embassy in Kabul, said she told the Liberal government in power at the time that the transfer agreement didn't do enough to protect detainees.

Canadian officials at the time weren't monitoring detainees after the transfer, and that left detainees vulnerable to torture once they were in Afghan hands, said Olexiuk, who met with torture victims during her three years in Afghanistan.

She said she documented her concerns in human rights reports prepared for the Department of Foreign Affairs, stressing that Canadians should have been visiting the detainees regularly after transfers and making records of detainees who were still being held and those who had been released.

But Olexiuk said her advice was ignored by Paul Martin's government.

"I don't think anybody really cared, quite frankly," she said ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Let's see who ELSE chases this one - this, from CBC.ca:

Is it not illegal or, at least, highly improper, to suggest that Liberals might be responsible for anything, except sweetness an light, of course?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afghan detainees: The Liberal government was warned about possible torture/Rendition realities
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/03/afghan-detainees-liberal-government-was.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Let's see who ELSE chases this one - this, from CBC.ca:

Que chirping Legacy media crickets......

Maybe this will gain traction in the blogosphere, though.

 

[GAP]

CBC had excerpts from the PP presentation on this....this is nothing different than any issue where the government is telling everyone to stay on message....no big conspiracy here...but, CBC hasn't let this issue go. I wonder who is whispering in their collective ears?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Que chirping Legacy media crickets......

Maybe this will gain traction in the blogosphere, though.

In spite of my cynicism, I've gotta give credit where due - it appears CBC is following up.  This, from CBC.ca:

The Liberal government of 2005 feared Canada's detention of Afghan prisoners would spark a controversy similar to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, according to a current government official who spoke with CBC News on condition of anonymity.

The official's claim comes just after Eileen Olexiuk, a former Canadian diplomat with extensive experience in Afghanistan, disclosed that in 2005, she raised the possibility detainees transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody were at risk of torture. Paul Martin's government ignored her concerns, she said.

The government official, who has been involved with the detainee issue for years, confirmed much of what Olexiuk said and added it's clear now Canada should have done more in 2005, when that first detainee transfer agreement was negotiated with the Afghan government.

He said the Liberal government looked at three options as it considered moving Canadian troops to the embattled Kandahar province from the relative stability of Kabul:

    * A "take and keep," which the official said raised fears of problems such as those the U.S. encountered with its control of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or its detention of terrorism suspects at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    * Handing off detainees to U.S. forces for transfer to U.S. facilities like Guantanamo, which had already led to trouble for a previous Liberal defence minister, Art Eggleton.
    * Working with Afghans and the local system in place at the time.

In the end, the government opted for the third option, the official said, adding officials and politicians felt they had to trust that helping the Afghans improve their own prison system would be enough to protect Canada's detainees ....

Is it not illegal or, at least, highly improper, to suggest that Liberals might be responsible for anything, except sweetness an light, of course?

If so, I find CBC guilty as charged m'lord 

 

[Rifleman62]

"according to a current government official who spoke with CBC News on condition of anonymity" and "The government official, who has been involved with the detainee issue for years"

Why is this knowledgable offical only speaking up now when it is finally reported the the Liberals are where this all started? Where was he before if he knew the history?

 

[MarkOttawa]

From BruceR. at Flit with particular reference to Doubting Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star:

God help me these people are morons
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_03_10.html#006683

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Shec]

The Soylent Green idea sounds like a workable solution to this non-issue,  not to mention addressing the problem of world hunger. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, according to an article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is another twist:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-wanted-afghan-army-to-oversee-detainees-memos-show/article1497615/

Ottawa wanted Afghan army to oversee detainees, memos show
But attempts by Canadian officials to remove prisoner oversight duties from notorious intelligence service ‘went nowhere'

Murray Brewster

Ottawa — The Canadian Press

Thursday, Mar. 11, 2010

NATO allies lobbied Afghanistan's president for a separate legal framework to handle prisoners captured around Kandahar in late 2006 but those efforts “went nowhere,” say internal memos.

The records outline an early strategy of the Canadian government as it faced pressure from the International Red Cross and others to take more responsibility for captured Taliban fighters.

Opposition parties have accused the Conservative government of turning a blind eye to potential torture in Afghan jails, despite warnings from its own officials and international human-rights groups.

But uncensored documents shown to The Canadian Press by two confidential sources suggest Ottawa was in fact pressing for an arrangement to remove responsibility for prisoners from Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service and give it to the country's Ministry of Defence.

The idea was to let the fledgling Afghan army operate a detention facility built by the United States rather than rely on either the National Directorate of Security or the country's shaky correctional system.

The proposal included a demand that Afghanistan create a separate legal framework for terror suspects, similar to the U.S. system of military tribunals.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai was pressed to carve out “a new detainee policy that would have made the Afghan army responsible for prisoners and created a new class of detainees, but efforts have gone nowhere,” says a Dec. 4, 2006, memo.

The Afghan army is among the few institutions that enjoys a measure of respect among corruption-weary Afghans.

Canadian officials earlier rejected overtures from the Dutch and British to open their own detention facility.

At the time, Canada lacked the ability to monitor the condition of prisoners it captured, despite being responsible under international law, and was reluctant to institute a monitoring regime.

In 2005, Paul Martin's Liberal government decided to transfer prisoners to the Afghans to avoid handing them to the Americans, a politically explosive proposition.

The proposal to put Afghan soldiers in charge was resisted by the country's defence minister, General Abdul Rahim Wardak, who wanted to concentrate on building the army into a fighting force.

And the proposal was apparently rejected because of the insistence facilities be subject to a “U.S.-style system for trying those considered a threat to national security.”

A Nov. 24, 2006, Foreign Affairs cable shows that the International Red Cross had serious concerns that Mr. Karzai would issue such a decree.

The humanitarian agency asked Canada to “engage further” and insisted that any such designation for prisoners come in the form of “legislation, not decrees.”

The collapse of the proposal left Ottawa with no alternative for monitoring detainees until officials cobbled together a plan for the underfunded Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to become the watchdog.

But that plan immediately went awry when Afghan intelligence prevented the commission's inspectors from visiting prisons. It was only with the publication of torture claims that the Conservative government relented and oversaw prisoners itself.

The United States, which has maintained a vast detention facility at the Bagram air base near Kabul, has revived the idea of Afghan troops overseeing prisoners.

Last September, Defence Secretary Robert Gates instituted a task force that would transfer prisoners to the Afghan ministry of defence within a year.

IF I am reading the correctly the current government, which came to power early in 2006, understood that the ”arrangement,” put in place by the previous (Liberal) government – the one signed on that government’s behalf by Gen. Hillier - was inadequate or, at least, unsatisfactory. They were, it appears to me, trying to effect change even as Colvin as was sounding his alarms.

It makes me wonder why the Tories are so resistant to a full blown public inquiry; it seems to me that more political blame must attach to the Liberals than to the Conservatives and an inquiry, now, in 2010, would remind Canadians that it was Liberals who committed Canada to Afghanistan and to Kandahar, too. Seems like a political win, to me: shut down the HoC Committee that is smearing all and sundry and let people start blaming the Liberals for the mess.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/11/adrian-macnair-would-honesty-on-afghanistan-be-asking-too-much.aspx

Full Comment, National Post

Adrian MacNair: Asking for honesty is asking too much
Posted: March 11, 2010

Despite the myriad sources of information from which to draw in order to write a column that has a grain of truth to it, it would appear that the usual suspects from the usual media sources insist on getting it wrong. You can hardly blame them. Well, actually you can, but it will hardly help. At this point, people are merely going to believe what they want to believe, and truth be damned. When it comes to Afghanistan, has it ever been any different?

Thomas Walkom, in particular, seems to get it wrong the most frequently. This rather pathetic self-flagellation of Canadians throwing their hands up in the air and making excuses that nothing else could have been done, is as depressing as their inability to get basic facts correct. Journalists are treating this fluid battle with ever-changing dynamics as something static, as though everybody has morphed into Francis Fukuyama, mourning the end of history. Pakistan capturing half the Taliban leadership in the past month? Barely a whisper.

It’s certainly easier to report on a story if you have a prearranged view on what’s actually happening. The evolution of the detainee story is a prime example. What began as little more than hearsay from Amir Attaran in the CBC, became a report in the Canadian Press, which became a fact in the minds of the official opposition in the House of Commons, as Jack Layton and Ujjal Dosanjh asked ridiculous questions about secret spies, torture, and rendition. The latter word, as I mentioned before, being technically incorrect by definition alone.

The question is, what would make the critics of the treatment of captured detainees happy? It’s as though people actually expect that we can fight a battle against the Taliban, who abide by no rules of warfare, wear no uniforms, and respect no international laws, without ever making a mistake. It’s already disturbing enough that people seem more concerned about the treatment of men who are fighting for a way of life considered barbaric by just about everybody who isn’t an Islamic Fundamentalist, than they are for the women or children used as human meat shields in the Taliban quest to outlast our resolve. But to ignore these crimes, while sifting through every prison, poring through every report, to attempt to find one instance of injustice that might undermine our moral cause, is quite simply disgusting.

As Bruce writes on his blog:

So if we accept that the Afghan justice system was or is in no state to receive our detainees in anything like a just or efficient fashion, we are certainly justified in looking around for alternatives. The alternative the Americans came up with was American-run detention in Bagram, and we can see how well that’s worked out for them. I suppose a sort of Timurid approach of refusing to take any prisoners at all, ever, could be an option: not sure how well that would go over at home, though. Not really many other alternatives than those, though. Take them home in our kit bags? Soylent Green? What?

Good questions. What would make people happy? Take no prisoners? Inhuman. Hand prisoners over to their own legal authority? Inhumane. Build our own prisons? Well, then you get the complaints that it’s too expensive, or it’s an extra-judicial gulag, or it’s a sign of colonialism. And before long you can be sure Amir Attaran would find a document which proved that a detainee slipped in the shower and cut himself, and we’d be back in permanent scandal mode anyway.

The truth is that there’s probably nothing good enough for the critics of the Afghan war. Trying to appease people who are already dealing in bad faith is pointless. Trying to sanitize warfare is a comfortable illusion of a generation of Canadians who have been raised to believe that our military exists to “keep the peace”. They would be happy if we were deployed to sit in Kandahar Air Field with blue helmets and United Nations’ flags signifying the 1% of the province officially safe from the reach of the Taliban. That way, when the Taliban is massacring people 100 metres from the Air Field, we can cite our rules of engagement directive of non-interference, and never get our hands dirty. Sure, people will die. But at least we won’t run the risk of being the ones who handed over the Taliban fighter that wound up falling down in the shower.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/11/adrian-macnair-would-honesty-on-afghanistan-be-asking-too-much.aspx#ixzz0i1JU6rKO
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

 

[Rifleman62]

To prove the point, one of the "usual suspects from the usual media sources ".

Toronto Star 10 Mar 10: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/777471--walkom-frank-iacobucci-s-appointment-diminishes-parliament

Walkom: Frank Iacobucci's appointment diminishes ParliamentPublished On Wed Mar 10 2010Email Print Republish Add to Favourites Report an error

By Thomas Walkom
National Affairs Columnist

Politically, Ottawa's decision to hand off the Afghan prisoner scandal to retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci serves both Stephen Harper's Conservatives and Michael Ignatieff's Liberals.

Constitutionally, however, it is a disaster. It flies in the face of the bedrock Canadian principle that cabinet is responsible to Parliament and that a government – any government – must accede to the wishes of a majority of elected MPs.

Instead, it brings to the mix a peculiarly American notion, one that sees the executive and legislature as co-equals which, when they are deadlocked, must appeal to a judicial referee.

In this case, the referee is a former judge who – in the end – will merely make recommendations to government in a bitter dispute over Harper's refusal to give MPs documents that they have demanded.

But first, the politics.

For Harper, the advantages of the Iacobucci gambit are obvious. Politically, the imbroglio over Afghan prisoners has turned into a disaster for his Conservatives.

Ottawa's insistence that nothing untoward happened to Canadian-captured prisoners after they were handed over to Afghan authorities has been countered by its own diplomats and by the Red Cross.

Even Canada's top military brass is now trying to distance itself from the government's blanket denials.

Over the weekend, The Canadian Press reported that, in some cases, agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service recommended which prisoners should be handed over to the Afghans for possible torture.

In short, Canadian involvement in the mistreatment of Afghan prisoners may have been more deliberate than previously thought.

The government has tried everything to prevent any of this from coming to light. It stonewalled a quasi-judicial inquiry, publicly slagged one of its own diplomats, refused Commons demands to hand over documents to a parliamentary committee, accused critics of treason and finally suspended Parliament itself.

Last Friday, with the issue still refusing to die, it played the Iacobucci card – presumably under the hope that by the time the former judge reports the Afghan torture issue will have finally gone away.

For the Liberals, too, Iacobucci's appointment provides a respite. Scarborough Liberal MP Derek Lee had planned to bring the confrontation between government and Commons to a head Friday through a procedural manoeuvre that would have formally declared Harper in contempt of Parliament.

But this could have precipitated an immediate election, which low-in-the-polls Ignatieff is desperate to avoid.

Friday's Iacobucci announcement gave Lee the opportunity to back out gracefully and saved the Liberals from forcing an election they are too fearful to fight.

(For Ignatieff, this may a short-lived victory. Buoyed by an improving economy and backed by a feel-good budget, Harper could still call an early election.)

However, for Canadian democracy, all of this is terrible news. Here, there are few checks on the power of government. But the main one is that, within the broad confines of the Constitution, cabinet must do what elected MPs want.

If a majority of MPs want a bill passed, that bill becomes law. If, as in the Afghan prisoner case, a majority of MPs want to see government documents, these documents must be produced. In a parliamentary democracy, there is little executive privilege because the executive, in effect, serves at the pleasure of the Commons.

As for Iacobucci, he's no patsy. But that's not the point.

The point is that there is no room for a judge, retired or otherwise, in this fight. A firm majority of elected MPs, representing a solid majority of Canadians have demanded documents. Constitutionally, the government has no choice but to produce them.

And the link MarkOttawa posted said:

God help me these people are morons

I know no one writing or commenting publicly on the Afghan detainee issue these days reads this page, but they all seem so determined to crank up the stupid on this that I feel compelled to do what little I can to offset it.

Case in point today: the Star's Thomas Walkom.

Over the weekend, The Canadian Press reported that, in some cases, agents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service recommended which prisoners should be handed over to the Afghans for possible torture.

There is no way to sugar coat this. That is not what the CP story actually said happened. That sentence is pure fiction. There is nothing remotely defensible about it. Clear enough?

 

[The Bread Guy]

MINISTER OF JUSTICE RELEASES TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INDEPENDENT ADVISER TO REVIEW NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Department of Justice news release, 13 Mar 10
News release link

The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today released the Terms of Reference for the appointment of the Honourable Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., LL.D., as an Independent Adviser. Mr. Iacobucci will conduct an independent review of documents related to the transfer of detainees by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

"“As I stated in the House of Commons, the government acknowledges that it is appropriate that decisions on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed in an independent manner,”" stated Minister Nicholson. "“This will ensure that parliamentarians will have access to the relevant government information on the arrangements for the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan while ensuring there is no injury to Canada's national defence, international relations or national security.”"

On December 10, 2009, the House of Commons passed a motion seeking access to documents that contain information that would potentially be injurious to Canada’s international relations, national defence or national security if released.  Mr. Iacobucci will review the protected information included in those documents as well as all other relevant documents, including those from the period 2001 to 2005, so that parliamentarians have a fuller understanding of the transfer arrangements.

Mr. Iacobucci will provide recommendations to the Minister of Justice as to whether information would be injurious to Canada’s international relations, national defence or national security and whether any such information should nevertheless be released because the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in non-disclosure.  He will prepare a report on his methodology and general findings for public release.

“As an independent and impartial adviser with significant expertise and experience in this area, Mr. Iacobucci will provide our Government with valuable advice for fulfilling our responsibilities to parliamentarians, Canadians and the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan,” added Minister Nicholson.

Terms of reference and biographical notes on Mr. Iacobucci are attached. Mr. Iacobucci will be unavailable for public comment until his report is completed.
-30-

Terms of Reference.

 

[GAP]

Canada broke pledges on Afghan jails, letters show
Article Link
Paul Koring Wednesday's Globe and Mail, Mar. 17, 2010 6:59AM EDT

Canada and its allies have repeatedly promised – and failed – to build a new prison in Afghanistan where transferred detainees could be interned without risk of abuse, torture or ill-treatment and where Afghan guards could be mentored and trained in treating battlefield captives within the bounds of international law, according to Afghan secret police documents.

In an apologetic letter to Amrullah Saleh, head of Afghanistan’s National Security Directorate, Canadian, British and Dutch officials pledged “to assure you of our commitment to help build a new NDS detention facility in Kabul.”

The letter, signed by senior diplomats in Kabul representing Canada, Britain and the Netherlands – the three NATO countries doing most of the fighting and transferring most of the detainees to overcrowded and notorious Afghan prison – was hand-delivered to NDS headquarters on Feb 12, 2009. “We expect construction to start this summer,” the letter added, referring to last summer.

Whatever private assurances the government of Stephen Harper has given the Afghan regime, ministers have never publicly announced any interest in prison-building in Afghanistan, although billions have been earmarked for other infrastructure. And, since last February, no work on a new NDS prison has been started.

The placatory letter followed an angry confrontation in which Mr. Saleh upbraided allied diplomats for failing to make good on promises to build a prison, to train and mentor Afghan guards and for imposing random repeated inspections aimed at ferreting out allegations of torture and abuse. He also railed against Western intelligence agents interrogating detainees in Afghan jails and said he had been ordered by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to block further inspections unless the Western allies complied with a set of demands.

“We are told for a number of years now that a new detention facility will be build for us,” Mr. Saleh wrote in a follow-up letter, accusing the allies of dangling a modern, humane, secure facility that met international standards but failing to deliver. “There is no sign of real progress, it is still largely talk only,” Mr. Saleh wrote. The NDS letter is among a new tranche of previously undisclosed documents now in the possession of The Globe and Mail.
More on link

 

[GAP]

Liberal calls out Liberal Party on war crimes charges
March 21, 10:55 PMCanada Politics ExaminerBrian Lilley
Article Link

Dan Donovan says he is just writing what he and other Liberals have been thinking and speaking about in Ottawa over the past few months, his party has lost its way on the Afghanistan issue, specifically torture.

Donovan, the publisher of Ottawa Life Magazine and a long time Liberal was appearing on local radio in the capital when I first hear him going off on his own party. Normally, Donovan appears on CFRA in Ottawa as a Liberal pundit but last week was full of anger at his party for going too far in pursuing the Afghan detainee issue. In the eyes of this one-time Liberal staffer, foreign affairs critic Bob Rae and defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh are aligning the party of the centre with the left fringe of Canadian politics by accusing the Canadian military of war crimes.

Donovan uses his editorial column in the latest issue of his magazine to blast away at the two Liberal critics.

“Many lifelong Liberals, like me, are disgusted with Rae and Dosanjh and their antics. Their agenda is to do whatever they can to attack the Prime Minister and Defence Minister, even if it means tarring the reputation of Canada and the Canadian Forces. It’s odd, I’ve never heard Rae or Dosanjh expend the same amount of energy on matters related to the deaths of 136 soldiers and diplomats violently killed in Afghanistan”

Even more anger is directed at Dosanjh, given his position as health minister in the Martin government.

“I don’t recall Dosanjh expressing any concerns for detainees when he was a Liberal Minister in the Paul Martin Cabinet that expanded our Afghan mission. Actually, I don’t recall Dosanjh expressing any concern for our poorly armed troops who were killed in action in Afghanistan because he and his colleagues in Cabinet sent the troops to Afghanistan with equipment that did not provide them with enough protection. He must have done so … but in private with the same great flare, gusto and passion he articulates for the Taliban prisoners. Bravo Ujjal! Bravo!”

While I don’t share Donovan’s anger, it is interesting to me to see a Liberal, a well known one in this city, calling out his party for, to use the colloquial term, sucking and blowing at the same time. The Liberal party has for some months now been attempting to say that the government may be complicit in war crimes but fearing the accusation that they don’t stand with the troops, they say they are not accusing Canadian soldiers of war crimes.

They must think we have trained cats in Afghanistan handing over prisoners to the local authorities for torture.

The fact of the matter is that if Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay or General Rick Hillier are guilty of war crimes, then so are the soldiers that carried out those orders. It was established at Nuremberg that, “just following orders” was not a valid defence. The International Criminal Court also establishes in Article 33 of the Rome Statute that following orders is not a defence.

Article 33
Superior orders and prescription of law

1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;

(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

Just to make sure that everything is clear, Article 7 counts torture as a crime against humanity as well as “other inhumane acts.”

The Liberals have been warned by those inside the party and out that their strategy of claiming war crimes is risky, that it could see front line troops charged. Still they persist, while saying they are not in any way demeaning the work of the men and women on the ground. Such talk is patently false. If the people in leadership positions that ordered the transfers are guilty of war crimes, so are those that handed them over. During the many decades that the Liberals were in power, Canada deported men who were just following orders during the Second World War.

If the members of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition were so confident in their assertions that war crimes occurred, they would be joining Professor Michael Byers from UBC in asking the ICC to investigate Canada. They don’t for two reasons, firstly to do so would rob them of a weapon to beat the government over head with during question period, secondly, the Liberals are smart enough to realize that the Canadian public would not take kindly to our own politicians accusing our own soldiers of war crimes. A party that did so would not see power for some time.

Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for radio stations Newstalk 1010 in Toronto and CJAD 800 in Montreal. Follow Brian on Twitter to get the latest as it happens.

Get more from Examiner.com's Canadian Politics Examiner
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the piece. I especially like this bit:

"Meanwhile, Mr. Rae and Mr. Dosanjh prostitute themselves for media ratings, offering scarce objectivity and an absence of balance. They postulate that if
Canadian soldiers handed over even one prisoner who was then mistreated (or tortured) by Afghan authorities, both the Prime Minister and Defence Minister must be war criminals. There could not be any other explanation. Their conjecture is nothing but absurd."

That sums it up, neatly.

 

[leroi]

Great find, Gap!

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a video interview of Bibi here.

 

[Rifleman62]

Only a few questions in QP today. The LPC read the poll??