Afstan: Shooting the messenger
I think Damian deals well the difficult substantive issues that have been involved in dealing with Afghan detainees. I'm going to look at how the matter is now being dealt with in Canada. I find the government's approach reprehensible.
But first full audio of Richard Colvin's testimony Nov. 18 to the Commons' Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (I could not find a video).
Then some headlines in chronological order, first two a month ago:
A key point to me is that senior bureaucrats and CF officers apparently took no action for a long time on Mr Colvin's reports of Afghan government abuse/torture of detainees turned over by the CF (such abuse is absolutely common in many parts of the world but that's another story). Then he says a very senior official indeed told him to stop putting things on paper.
A question: if his reporting, on a very serious matter that became a political hot potato in February 2007, was not taken seriously, or was considered seriously flawed, why was no effort apparently made by Foreign Affairs or the CF otherwise to determine what was happening to detainees? The person doing the job was told, in effect, to down tools.
The government is now doing its worst to discredit Mr Colvin. In the Commons' Question Period this morning the government lead, transport minister John Baird, repeatedly maintained Mr Colvin's testimony and reports were not credible. So, if he was not credible in 2006-7, I ask again why was no effort made seriously at that time to find out the real facts? Did people simply not want to know?
It is also passing strange that if Mr Colvin lacked credibility in the eyes of his superiors he nonethless was posted to the very sensitive job of intelligence liaison in Washington, D.C. It's hard trying to have it six ways to Sunday. And it's also pretty reprehensible that top bureaucrats and CF officers are acquiescing in the government's politics of personal destruction.
I have no belief that things would be dealt with much differently under a Liberal government, though perhaps there would be fewer efforts to shoot the messenger. What a sad state of affairs this country is in.
By the way, there was no "first-hand" evidence (what the government decries Mr Colvin for not providing) for the torture of Mahar Arar nor for that of Messrs Almalki, Nureddin and El Maati either. It's not very often that foreign security services torture right in front of Canadian officials or let those officials physically examine prisoners soon after any torture.
Disclosure: I was a foreign service officer with External Affairs from 1974 until 1988, ending up with, er, middle rank.
Update: A judicious, in the best sense, editorial in the Globe and Mail (the editorial board, oddly, seems rather less Globeite agenda-driven that reporters and editors):
But first full audio of Richard Colvin's testimony Nov. 18 to the Commons' Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (I could not find a video).
Then some headlines in chronological order, first two a month ago:
MacKay seeks answers on abuse reportAnd something to clear up: Mr Colvin is not a "senior" or "top" diplomat as most of our media insist on describing him. He is mid-level, roughly Lieutenant-Colonel equivalent I would think. This story gets much of that right, but (the headline also is completely mis-leading as political types or ministers would have had no involvement in his assignments)...
Opposition charges 'wilful blindness,' as defence minister says report about torture concerns didn't get to his desk
THE DETAINEE FILES: Canada's top soldier wants to know fate of missing Afghan reports [with videos]
Afghan detainees surrendered by Canada were tortured: Envoy
Officials dismiss Afghan torture claims
Canada would never participate in a 'war crime,' retired general says
Rick Hillier denies receiving Afghan abuse alert
Critics want Afghan torture case inquiry
Ottawa paints whistleblower as Taliban dupe
Torture issue arose in 2006
Source: Canadian officials discussed suspected abuse
Colvin groomed in hot-spots around the world by Liberals and ConservativesOops! From the current version of the official publication:
The man who is now the target of so much Conservative scorn was thought suitably intrepid to be assigned by his government masters to some of the hottest counter-insurgencies over the past 15 years.
A spokesperson for the Foreign Affairs Department said Richard Colvin, who has unleashed a political tsunami on the government with his stunning testimony about torture in Afghanistan, doesn't rate an official biography because he is a relatively lower-level functionary.
And yet Colvin served out sensitive Foreign Affairs missions in Sri Lanka and the Palestinian Territory before he was posted to Afghanistan. He is among the rare diplomats who have served in both Moscow and Washington, where he is now a first secretary in the intelligence liaison office...
Canadian Representatives AbroadThere are 18 counsellors at the embassy. Counsellor rank is one above first secretary.United States of America - Washington, D.C....
Mission The Embassy of Canada to the United States of America, Washington
Counsellor [emphasis added] (Political) R. Colvin
A key point to me is that senior bureaucrats and CF officers apparently took no action for a long time on Mr Colvin's reports of Afghan government abuse/torture of detainees turned over by the CF (such abuse is absolutely common in many parts of the world but that's another story). Then he says a very senior official indeed told him to stop putting things on paper.
A question: if his reporting, on a very serious matter that became a political hot potato in February 2007, was not taken seriously, or was considered seriously flawed, why was no effort apparently made by Foreign Affairs or the CF otherwise to determine what was happening to detainees? The person doing the job was told, in effect, to down tools.
The government is now doing its worst to discredit Mr Colvin. In the Commons' Question Period this morning the government lead, transport minister John Baird, repeatedly maintained Mr Colvin's testimony and reports were not credible. So, if he was not credible in 2006-7, I ask again why was no effort made seriously at that time to find out the real facts? Did people simply not want to know?
It is also passing strange that if Mr Colvin lacked credibility in the eyes of his superiors he nonethless was posted to the very sensitive job of intelligence liaison in Washington, D.C. It's hard trying to have it six ways to Sunday. And it's also pretty reprehensible that top bureaucrats and CF officers are acquiescing in the government's politics of personal destruction.
I have no belief that things would be dealt with much differently under a Liberal government, though perhaps there would be fewer efforts to shoot the messenger. What a sad state of affairs this country is in.
By the way, there was no "first-hand" evidence (what the government decries Mr Colvin for not providing) for the torture of Mahar Arar nor for that of Messrs Almalki, Nureddin and El Maati either. It's not very often that foreign security services torture right in front of Canadian officials or let those officials physically examine prisoners soon after any torture.
Disclosure: I was a foreign service officer with External Affairs from 1974 until 1988, ending up with, er, middle rank.
Update: A judicious, in the best sense, editorial in the Globe and Mail (the editorial board, oddly, seems rather less Globeite agenda-driven that reporters and editors):
The torture and the paper trailUpperdate: Fuller profiles of Mr Colvin are here and here.
A consistent pattern of looking the other way when informed about the abuse of Afghan detainees would say something disturbing about a whole group of Canadian institutions
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 1:55 p.m.
1 Comments:
What the Afghans do with their prisoners is their business, not ours. We don't have the personnel, or the infrastructure, to investigate, house, and in the end punish these terrorist suspects in Afghanistan. What would they have the military do? Bring them back to Canada?
Yes, Afghan society is not up to standards in the Western world. Their treatment of criminals / terrorist suspects leaves a lot to be desired. But how does that make it the Canadian military and Canadian government's fault?
Post a Comment
<< Home