Tories dismiss Afghan torture allegations despite no investigation

sanctus

The Padre
Oct 27, 2006
4,558
48
48
Ontario
www.poetrypoem.com
By Murray Brewster
OTTAWA (CP) - The embattled Conservative government is pushing a new line about claims of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan - it didn't happen.
But the assurance by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day on Friday came despite the fact that no full investigation has been conducted.
Meanwhile, the mystery continues over who, if anyone, is monitoring the treatment of detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops.
Day accused the opposition again Friday of believing "false allegations" of torture made by insurgents.
He insisted that two Corrections Canada officers in Kandahar have had full access to Afghan prisons, and that they have a mandate to report prisoner abuse. But he didn't say if they have been monitoring prisoners handed over by Canadian troops.
Day and other Conservatives again tried to deflect criticism by accusing opposition MPs of attacking the integrity of Canadian troops - even though the abuse allegations are not directed at soldiers.
Day's claim that Canada has had access to detainees is the latest in a series of changing stories by the Conservatives on who is monitoring the treatment of the prisoners.
The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which the government had tasked with monitoring detainees, said it has been denied access to prisoners in intelligence jails.
The government now says it is on the verge of signing a formal deal with Afghan officials to allow regular access, but critics wonder if even that will do any good.
Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada did little to ease such fears, saying that while the doors to Afghan prisons will swing open for Canadian officials, it will be up to Afghan authorities to deal with any suspected cases of abuse.
"It is the responsibility of our government to look into that and correct the problems that may exist, whether it's to charge someone with abuse or to prosecute someone - or to bring evidence to court," Omar Samad told The Canadian Press.
He said his country is taking "baby steps" toward the "establishment of the rule of law and the legal process must be respected."
Like just about every other situation in the war-ravaged country, the justice system is still a work-in-progress, Samad conceded, but insisted it is the sovereign right of Afghans to deal with their own citizens.
However, under international law, Canada has a responsibility to protect prisoners from abuse and to make sure they are not handed over to a state that practises torture.
University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has said recent reports that as many as 30 detainees, captured by Canadians, may have been abused show that the Afghans cannot be trusted to keep their word when it comes to human rights.
"How can you make the argument that processing someone through the Afghan justice system is going to result in the just separation of the guilty from the innocent?" he asked.
"That's not going to happen."
Even with this new access agreement, Attaran said Canadians need to think long and hard before handing someone over to that kind of system.
"At the end of the day, we are the ones taking detainees," he said. "The responsibility for detainees begins with us."
If detainees are tortured, Canadian troops could face possible war crimes allegations, he said, considered as possible accomplices under international law.
Samad did not deny that abuses may have take place in Afghan jails.
"There are reports that come out annually by various governments and international human rights organizations that point that are problems in dealing with humans rights in laws in Afghanistan with institutions that do not have the capacity," he said
"No one is denying Afghanistan faces those kinds of institutional and capacity problems."
But he said the Afghan government had not found evidence to the support the claims thus far.
"We are in a fact-finding mode to see if any of this credible and if it is then we have to decide what to do," he said.
Canadian and Afghan officials are in the process of working out the details of a written agreement between the two countries that clearly sets their roles and responsibilities.
Samad hinted that Corrections Canada officers and Foreign Affairs officials on the ground in Kandahar will play a greater role in monitoring detainees.


Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Its not even about whether the torture happened or it didn't although that's what the CONs would prefer to make it into to drag it out and maybe get themselves of the hook*.

too bloody late.

One day after being asked, Day gave the numbers of detainees from what must have been a tally from the prison manifests. Right now the shame in this is no one can say for sure if those numbers square with DND field reports and a head count and that's bad enough. One can only hope it doesn't get worse from there because if people are missing a CANADIAN is going to answer for it.

* although it being Afghanistan and them knowing the Canadians aren't paying attention doesn't really improve the chances of that.
 
Last edited:

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Sooner or later O'Connor is going to get Ambrosed over this even though the whole thing has been about not making Steve's buddy Hillier look bad since Rick was the one who signed the deal in the first place.
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Yeah, this whole 3 card Monte routine of the past week is VERY disappointing... not surprising in the least, I've had a feeling that our "mission" was exactly the tangled mess of propaganda lies and obfuscation as it's being shown now to be, but deep down I'd been hoping I was imagining a worst-case scenario, and that the facts would be somewhat less harsh than my own expectations

Turrns out I was right all along.

I hope this is dealt with as the SERIOUS set of issues it is. I wonder, at this point, what the strategists and handlers plans are.. "deny deny deny" has failed outright, blaming Dion or Layton is out of the question- could the Conservatives ACTUALLY be forced to get "real", or do you think they're just gonna crank up the divisive, patriotic, Liberal-blaming rhetoric??

Maybe an attack on Canadian soil would make us all understand how crucial our work is and how these allegations of torture pale in comparison to what the "Islamo-fascists" have in store for us

Sure as hell hope not
 
Last edited:

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...could the Conservatives ACTUALLY be forced to get "real", or do you think they're just gonna crank up the divisive, patriotic, Liberal-blaming rhetoric?...


The latter. I can hear the conservative blogsphere cranking it up from here and I can see that Dion doesn't have to worry about it seeping into the mainstream because countering crap like an adult is always good for the ratings. except around here, but that rep points feature is a crock so care loads.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
As long as our soldiers are coming home in caskets,I care nothing for any loss of rights for any prisoners taken over there.

That's warrior talk Missle. We can have that at any tavern. If you care nothing for prisoner treatment then you are an outlaw.The Geneva convention requires of us humane treatment of all captured combatants. Canadians died in signifigant numbers so that we could arrive at international laws governing human conduct. If we are to disregard those laws we are proveing thier sacrifice was for nothing, and at the same time condemning future youth to repeat the same bloodshed and destruction.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
As long as our soldiers are coming home in caskets,I care nothing for any loss of rights for any prisoners taken over there.


Our troops support human rights. Our troops are in Afghanistan in harms way to defend and promote human rights. If Harper really wants to support our troops he has to ensure that they can do their job without having to jeopardize their obligations with regards to international laws as well as the standards which we adhere to in our own society—our very own laws/values regarding human life.

This government is putting the honour of our troops on the line and is using them via our patriotism as a way to shield themselves from their own responsibility in the matter. Absolutely disgraceful.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Our troops support human rights. Our troops are in Afghanistan in harms way to defend and promote human rights. If Harper really wants to support our troops he has to ensure that they can do their job without having to jeopardize their obligations with regards to international laws as well as the standards which we adhere to in our own society—our very own laws/values regarding human life.

This government is putting the honour of our troops on the line and is using them via our patriotism as a way to shield themselves from their own responsibility in the matter. Absolutely disgraceful.


We can use this prisoner situation to examine our involvements real motivation. If as you state the promotion of and maintennance of human rights were the fundemental reasons for our Afghan mission I would think we would have ensured that was taken care of from the outset.
It is blatantly obvious we are in Afghanistan serving the Empires campaign of hydro-carbon conquest. We are in fact quilty of war crimes. There is a reason that the other members of Nato hang back and leave the Axis of Capitalism holding the bag. Avoidance of blowback 101.
 

Silverhead

New Member
Apr 20, 2007
9
0
1
You need to examine our intentions for being in Afghanistan and how we want to relate to the people and their culture. Are we there to conquer them and force our points of view on an unwilling population? Or are we there to enable an oppressed people to stand on their own two feet after an oppressive regime? (one that we should have taken action to stop long before 9/11)
If we are to intervene and help protect people, build schools, dig wells, and assist a democratic government in it's first shaky years, then we need to hand over the reins of power and law enforcement to the people. By fully controlling the handling of detainees, we are telling the people and their officials, "We just don't think you can handle the job...not up to our standards anyway."
It is similar to your professors coming down to your job and doing it for you, "sure we gave you the tools to handle yourself, but we don't have faith you can, by the way, your mom is coming over to make sure you washed behind your ears."
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Greeting Silverhead

Your position on this is obviously based on the notion that there is some noble purpose behind what we're doing there. From all I have seen and heard, that is NOT the case. I agree there IS an element of "we're helping Afghanistan be the way we want it to be", that is very much true. As I have posted here time and again (with NO response other than cowards hitting me with anonymous comments) the STATED PURPOSE of our "mission" was premised on the fact that we did NOT like the way things were being done in Afghanistan and were set to re-make it in a more friendly image- if that is not true, WHY oh WHY all the BSthanks to our efforst, women are now going to school"

See, the very fact (and it IS most definitely a fact) that such a thing was touted as a "success" (even tho from all I've been able to see, the suggestion is patently false) and something we should be proud of demonstrates QUITE CLEARLY that we are not above telling "them" the "way it should be"

WHY, then, now, do we have to accept the way things are being done, contrary to the very same "values" we supposedly hold that SUPPOSEDLY got us to go there in the first place (and don't try to wiggle out with "we went because our ally was attacked", that premise was dropped pretty early on and replaced wit the "womens rights" garbage pretty early on)

Suddenly we respect their sovreignty?? Why now?? what honestly changed SO much that now it would be WRONG to tell Afghanistan and the whole coalition of the duped that if they do NOT play by our rules, no more help?? Hell, we do that to our OWN F-ING CITIZENS by way of social assistance, play "our" way or the highway, right??
but now that we invaded the country and helped install what by all indicators is a "brutal regime" (and recall some talk from years past about what happens to "rogue nations who prop up brutal dictatorships"- hint- check some of Bush or Reagans speeches) we have to RESPECT IT???

I would like someone to actually address what I have posted repeatedly, it is the stark, sad truth- maybe most of the cheerleaders don't have anything to say past "support the troops", but I have a brain and it feels like it is being urinated on by our current government
 

Silverhead

New Member
Apr 20, 2007
9
0
1
I don't want to get into a big thing on the "why" we are there.
Undoubtedly, you have several relevant points and I agree with you that the reasoning changed very rapidly, I can only say that this is due to the political winds of our nation and taking cues from the south.
However, I still believe that we are not there as an invasionary force, or as an occupying nation. We don't have a defined enemy, nor an end state.(no way of saying when we "win" or when it is feasible to pull out)
I simply ask that we keep in mind the situation NOW. I don't feel we should be babysitting a sovereign nation's law enforcement any more than we would want another nation telling us what to do. If you capture someone, hand them over to local authorities and carry on. Don't worry about politicians saying you are guilty of war crimes.
 

Silverhead

New Member
Apr 20, 2007
9
0
1
All right then, what would you have us do in the alternative?
Build a prison that would require more troops and extend the tours of the ones we have?
Send detainee's to Canada to be tried by a foreign government in a language they don't speak?
Deport detainee's to Pakistan?
Our soldiers cannot be expected to simply let attackers go anymore than they can be asked to shoot first and hang the consequences.
The reality is, we don't have the resources to keep tabs on every detainee and ensure their safe keeping in perpetuity. We can do our best to track when and where the detainees were released into who's custody and pass that information on to international non-government organizations.
But I maintain that this is a responsibility of the government and not the soldiers.