The character assassination of Richard Colvin

Twice as many Canadians believe the testimony of a diplomat who alleges Afghan detainees handed over by the Armed Forces were tortured than the government's assertion that the evidence lacks credibility, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found 51 per cent of respondents believed Richard Colvin's statement that all prisoners handed over by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities were likely abused and that government officials were well aware of the problem.

By comparison, only 25 per cent said they believed the Harper government's assertion that Colvin's claims are flimsy and not credible.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/25/colvin-harris-decima-poll.html

When you think of the people in you've met in your life experience who will not only make denials when found out but will also seek to attack and smear the accuser, what sort of people are we dealing with usually? Moral cowards lacking any sense of integrity and ethics? Yep, that is our government. Proud yet?

It's a page borrowed from the US Republicans. The Canadian Conservatives aren't even original in their ad hominem attacks on Richard Colvin.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

When you think of the people in you've met in your life experience who will not only make denials when found out but will also seek to attack and smear the accuser, what sort of people are we dealing with usually? Moral cowards lacking any sense of integrity and ethics? Yep, that is our government. Proud yet?

Former U.S. President Richard Nixon immediately comes to mind.

Come to think of it, he resigned over Watergate.

Will the same happen to Harper over the torture of Canadian tansfered (to Afghan authorities) detainees?

Diogenes wrote:

 

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Colvin gave his testimony. That testimony was the subject of cross-examination, as was the testimony given yesterday by three top generals.

With respect to this question of emails and communications, we have answered this question a number of times. When our military, when our diplomats, when individuals involved in the mission received information, they acted. They acted quickly. They acted decisively. We have invested to make improvements in the Afghan system.

Disparaging remarks and rhetorical flourishes are not going to help us get to the bottom of this issue. We are co-operating with the parliamentary committee and will continue to do so.

Sounds like the Honourable gentleman  is not only obtuse but is engaging in an exercise of obfuscation.

Excellent comment by "Contrarian". Why don't we have politicians who can challenge the Harper government in this fashion?

ennir wrote:

It seems rather obvious that Richard Colvin has everything to lose by speaking out, I suspect this was clear to him when he decided to do so, it is equally obvious that the Harper government has everything to gain by denial and the character assassination of Richard Colvin.  As to whether or not they can obscure this sufficiently, I am hoping for a complete failure on their part.

The Cons' success or failure depends on whether Canadians find their and the cabal of generals' behavior acceptable or not.

Despite what that poll said, I think the jury is out whether the swift boating of Richard Colvin will work. I'm sure more tha 50% of Americans would have said they believed John Kerry more than his attackers- but the damage was done anyway.

That onlt requires that enough doubts get planted in enough peoples heads such that they end up saying "I don't know"... which means in practice they tacitly accept the version of the generals and other underlings of the governments choice [David Mulroney, etc.]

Only time will tell on that. And while I don't expect Canadians to fall for this US Republican tactic, neither do I expect they will not fall for it.

My understanding is that as a civil servant he's entitled to a lawyer, and had one before he testified.

And of course Colvin will now pay the price for his transgressions.

Colvin is indeed a whistleblower

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/Colvin+indeed+whistleblower/2288078/story.html

Several months ago. 1,5 months

http://kempton.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/bloggerjournalist-kady-omalley/

Richar Nixon resigned, but no matter what happens Mr. Harper will never resign.  I have this horrible vision of his being  defeated in an election, but still clinging like an old dirty piece of gum, to the soles of our shoes. This happens in the world you know, so watch a government that closes down criticism of the police forces and the military.  It is building up debts that will be owed to it by these organizations.

Also lets call it what it is.  Redacted?  Polite term for censored, really.

would say there is now double egg on Blatchford's face...

The more information that is released on the House investigation into the Afghan detainee transfer and subsequent torture scandal, the more Richard Colvin is vindicated:

The Canadian Press wrote:

Afghanistan's intelligence service refused to accept Canadian - captured prisoners over the summer because the military was providing "insufficient evidence" of wrongdoing,...

The Afghan - imposed halt in transfers is at odds with claims by the federal government that the Canadian military refused to turn over detainees because local authorities were not living up to obligations to allow unfettered access to prisoners. Defence Minister Peter MacKay provided that explanation to the House of Commons on Nov. 23, with no mention of the simmering dispute with the National Directorate of Security, the Afghan spy agency.

Former diplomat Ricahrd Colvin told a special House of Commons committee two weeks ago that ordinary Afghans are often caught in security sweeps with little evidence of wrongdoing -- an allegation federal Conservatives and the military deny.

A Sept. 19, 2009, internal memo lends credence to Colvin's assertions.

... The Afghan decision to halt transfers sparked an urgent meeting between Canada's ambassador and the head of the National Directorate of Security in Kabul. Gen. Amrullah Saleh, on Sept. 6, says the memo, widely distributed within the federal government and NATO.

The local NDS commander "was refusing to accept Canadian - transferred detainees due to NDS claims of insuffient evidence being provided," says the document, shown to The Canadian Press on a confidential basis.

"Saleh indicated that it would be helpful if the Canadian Forces could provide additional context surrounding detentions (eg. Details of what was going on in the area at the time of capture) because detainees will inevitably claim they are simple farmers, who were working on their crops when detained," says the uncensored memo.

... And so with little or no evidence to hold suspects, the spy agency has been releasing them - to the dismay of the Canadian military.

Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, William Crosbie, "indicated that the subsequent release of detainees is having a profound and demoralizing effect on our soldiers" and military headquarters.

Saleh also complained that the continuing political controversy in Canada over alleged torture has led many prisoners to automatically claim abuse, which requires an official investigation.

The resources of the NDS have been tied up investigating claims of abuse, leaving no time for followup investigations into the suspected Taliban picked up by Canadians, Saleh is quoted as saying.

Suspected insurgents are sometimes able to get out of jail through political influence and tribal ties, says the memo.

That was especially true after last summer's fraud-laced presidential election, when village elders routinely lobbied the intelligence service to release prisoners.

There is "often significant political pressure to release certain detainees (especially now, given political uncertainty and widespread deal - making)," said the memo.

- Bold facing and underscoring added.

The lying lies...hope they wear it, as I hope other politicians will be wearing their deeds soon too.

The more information that comes to light, the worse things look for the government. I used to think the Harper administration was amoral. Now I think it's evil.

The Toronto Star wrote:

It also makes clear the division between the Canadian military, which supported Khalid, and skeptical diplomats, who became increasingly vocal about allegations of corruption, drug-running and prisoner abuse.

Canada ended up withdrawing its support for Khalid in 2008 when former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier, in what was widely viewed as a massive diplomatic blunder, publicly declared the governor had to go and that he'd urged Karzai to replace him. Provincial governors in Afghanistan are appointed by the president.

But Colvin's 2007 memo lays out in stark terms how the long-standing association had a corrosive effect on Canada's image in Kandahar. Khalid, Colvin warned, discredited Canada through association.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/738292--canada-...

Paul Koring wrote:

An unknown number of Taliban insurgents captured By Canadians and turned over to Afghanistan's secret police are unaccounted for - a serious violation of the Harper government's "improved" detainee-transfer agreement and one that may endager Canadian soldiers.

The latest detainee-transfer problem to emerge also threatens to undermine Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertion that "two, three, four years ago" his government fixed the problems that put Canada at risk of violating the Geneva Conventions by transferring detainees into torture.

"This issue has long since been dealt with," Mr. Harper said last week.

But a few days earlier, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon had quietly acknowledged that an unspecified number of transferred detainees can't be accounted for because Afghan security forces have failed to keep Canada informed of their fates.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/afghans-violating-detainee-...

I nominate Richard Colvin for Canadian-of-the-Year.

Here's another bombshell. Canada's policy of handing Afghan PoWs to Afghan authorities where they were subsequently tortured was no accident. The government knew these people would be tortured and covered it up right from the start:

Steven Chase and Paul Koring wrote:

Reports from the Canadian embassy in Kabul in September of 2006 reveal there was unease within the military alliance about how Canada was handling suspects it rounded up and transferred to Afghanistan's notorious intelligence service.

One of the complainants was British Colonel Dudley Giles, a senior military police officer with NATO's International Security Assistance Force the 40-plus nation coalition fighting insurgents in Afghanistan. In August of 2006 he brought his concerns to the Canadian embassy in Kabul, saying Canada was stonewalling on providing basic information on the Afghans it was capturing.

"Col. Giles made what can only be described as strong criticisms of the Canadian approach on detainee issues," Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin wrote in a Sept. 28, 2006, memo that was sent to more than 30 Canadian government e-mail addresses - most of them in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

"There are 'issues of trust and openness,' Mr. Colvin quoted Col. Giles as saying. "According to Giles, when he contacts Canadian [officials] in Kandahar, 'their first response to requests is "Why do you want to know?' followed by 'We know what you want, but we won't give it to you.'" The memos add to the weight of concerns already raised by Mr. Colvin, the International Committee of the Red Cross and human-rights groups about Canada's practices in transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities.

Diplomatic reports from the same period show that Mr. Colvin wasn't the only foreign service officer relaying criticisms about detainee transfers to Ottawa. A Sept. 11, 2006, memo from a Canadian NATO staffer alerted the government to the fact that the ICRC had singled out Canada's practice of handing over prisoners to the Afghans on the battlefield, a practice it feared could result in human-rights monitors losing track of detainees.

... Back then, however, Canada wasn't providing details even to its allies on what happened to the suspects it picked up. That is despite the fact that ISAF, the command structure for the war in Afghanistan, imposes legal and operational requirements aimed at ensuring detainees are looked after, transferred and held in accordance with international law.

... Canada's refusal to co-operate with its military allies on the prisoner issue originated at the top of the Canadian defence establishment, according to a Sept. 19, 2006, memo from Mr. Colvin. The diplomat recounted for Ottawa how ISAF political adviser Paul Wyatt told the Canadian embassy that Canada's senior military-police officer in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar fingered his Ottawa superiors as the obstructionists.

"The Canadian provost marshal in Kandahar has told ISAF that he would be pleased to provide the information but that he has received explicit instructions from National Defence Headquarters ... not to do so," Mr. Colvin's memo says.

At the same time, NATO was getting an earful from the Red Cross over Canada's handover policy. "One practice that was particularly criticized was that of the turning over of detainees by international forces directly to Afghan security forces when on joint patrol, as this could result in a circumventing of the requirement to notify the ICRC," Anne Burgess, a Canadian official stationed at NATO, wrote in a Sept. 11, 2006, e-mail distributed widely throughout Foreign Affairs. "Apparently Canadian forces were particularly identified with this practice."

That was long before The Globe and Mail published harrowing accounts of torture and abuse. Those stories, the government has since claimed, were its first inkling that anything was amiss with its transfer policy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-allies-faulted-ca...

The way I see it, Afghanistan is one big war crime made up of a series of war crimes. Since the war was/is a crime in the first place, any subsequent crimes makes the original criminal act worse. To put it another way, every subsequent crime we commit that comes to public attention in Afghanistan will, contrarily, increase (rather than decrease) the likelihood people will question our original (criminal) act of war against Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is now finally getting the proper media attention it deserves. This can only help the antiwar/peace coalition.

Or would you rather have the media go back to writing the war centric puff piece war porn infomercials it used to?

Vietnam and Watergate caused America to lose some of its innocence.

Afghanistan and Torturegate are doing the same thing to Canada. They are shattering the illusions that many Canadians and foreigners have of their country and of themselves as a culture and society.

So Harper wants war in Afghanistan? "Go ahead," I say, "have your fill!" The Vietnam War destroyed two U.S. Presidencies, nearly destroyed the Democratic Party and tore American society apart while it lasted.

This damn war (Afghanistan) and Torturegate could destroy Harper's Prime Ministership. If it does, "Good," I say, "he deserves it."