Afghan National Army soldiers. Photo credit: Master Corporal Robert Bottrill, Canadian Forces
The opposition attacked the federal Conservative government over Afghan detainees in Question Period again today, with the NDP picking up on the word “rendition” that had been used by federal MP for Vancouver South, Ujjal Dosanjh, the day before. The increasingly exaggerated language is based almost solely on the recent hornets nest stirred up by University of Ottawa Professor Amir Attaran, who inexplicably claims he has seen unredacted documents that show that Canadian intelligence officers ordered high-value targets to be tortured in Afghan prisons.
Following that CBC article was an rather vague report by the Canadian Press that CSIS has been used in some unknown, undeclared capacity in Afghanistan. But that doesn’t preclude the report from speculating about a number of things, such as the idea that CSIS has been playing a “crucial role” as interrogators of a “vast swath” of captured Taliban fighters. There’s no evidence to suggest this is true.
Picking up on these two unsubstantiated pieces of hearsay journalism, Ujjal Dosanjh spoke in the House of Commons on Monday:
“Mr. Speaker, the CBC and the Canadian Press have both reported that the government ordered the transfer of detainees to the notorious Afghan NDS for the purposes of extracting additional information.
We are not questioning the actions of our troops, as the Prime Minister continues to say, we are questioning the actions of the government.
Did the government conduct a deliberate policy of rendition, the outsourcing of interrogation and torture of Afghan detainees for extracting additional information?”
Well, transferring detainees to the NDS is hardly as surprising as Mr.Dosanjh makes it sounds. The Afghan NDS, whether the Liberal member thinks it is notorious being largely irrelevant, frequently rode along with Canadian Forces and joint task force operations, taking control of detainees on site. In fact, Afghan Police and NDS took custody of suspected Taliban fighters with no questions asked by Canadian Forces, and often without any documentation of the so-called transfer.
After the Prime Minister gave an answer that more or less insinuated the previous Liberal transfer policy was to blame for whatever problems the Liberals are looking for, Mr.Dosanjh asked again:
“Mr. Speaker, did the government conduct the policy of rendition? Each week media are reporting more troubling information. None of this information so far has helped the government’s claims.
Allegations as serious as rendition require more than just a vetting of the documents. They require a full and transparent public inquiry to look at all the facts.
Will the government do the right thing and call a public inquiry?”
The “information” referred to by Mr.Dosanjh is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated speculation in newspapers based upon claims made by a single University Professor and the extrapolation of torture from several unrelated events. But further to the point here, how exactly does one “rendition” an Afghan from his own country into the custody of his own police force? That word doesn’t quite make any sense in this context. When the police in Canada pull a gang member in for questioning, there isn’t any question that he’s been “renditioned”.
The main problem with the current theory being flogged by the Liberals and NDP right now, which is that CSIS has been acquiring “high-value targets” [based on words taken out of context by Richard Colvin] with the assistance of JTF-2 special forces [also unconfirmed], has been “outsourcing” interrogation to the Afghan intelligence services for the purposes of gleaning intel for NATO, is that there’s no logical explanation for it.
For one thing, the vast majority of detainees went directly to Afghan police, and hence NDS interrogation, anyway. For another, there was never any “vast swaths” of captured detainees to begin with. This concept that Canadian Forces captures dozens of Taliban fighters a day is something largely fabricated by an imaginative mind. Then there was the 72-hour rule for ISAF, which meant that all NATO players, like Canada, were required to turn over Afghan detainees to the proper authorities within 72 hours, or let them go.
The final red flag is the idea that CSIS would be working with the NDS in any capacity that would personally benefit Canada’s intelligence agency. There’s no reason for the Afghan intelligence agency to interrogate anyone for the benefit of Canada, nor that CSIS would get any information extracted from a detainee back from NDS.
Given the recent inventions of torture, rendition, and secret spies, you have to wonder what the opposition is going to come up with tomorrow. It kind of makes you want to tune in to Question Period and find out, doesn’t it?
I don’t get the B/S about CSIS? I would expect them there and they would be there to work and support Canadian operations and yes they do work in intelligence, so what is the issue? The reason we are supposed to be in Afghanistan is to support a friendly government against unfriendly types, so providing some prisoners to them is not unusual. The only issue here is this: did any Canadians torture Afghani’s or knowingly hand them over to the Afghan government knowing they would be tortured. I am certain the answer to the first question is NO. So far I see no evidence that the answer to the second question is not NO either.
What you have quoted here are questions from the Official Opposition which are based on reports in the media.
Despite your whining about this, it is actually the job of the Opposition to question the Government. The allegations being made are serious, and if true, are facts that would undoubtedly harm Canada’s reputation in the world.
What I get from your various postings here is that you don’t think Harper should be questioned on matters that might hurt the CPC. Well, too bad. The allegtions are out there and it would be grossly negligent of the Opposition to ignore them just because some supporters of the CPC are stamping their feet and complaining the Opposition is just mean.
One way – the easiest way to substantiate or dismiss the allegations is to ask the Government for evidence they are true or false. The Governmemt refuses to provide that evidence.
It is time to take this bullshit to the people.
Gayle do you have any family or friends over there that could be put in more danger than they already are with the release of “all the documentation” I do and I couldn’t give a shit if some terrorist gets a beating from his own people.
Well Rob, no doubt your people are proud of the way you invoke their names in order to give the government shelter from their responsibilities.
I care about my country. Maybe you should try that some time.
PS. I might add that people who say torture is OK so long as you are torturing other people, are probably not helping their party of choice.
I have yet to hear any realistic alternative from the opposition on this issue. Just what are the Canadian forces in the field supposed to do with Afghan nationals captured on Afghan soil? We can’t detain them ourselves. We don’t want to just turn them loose. We certainly aren’t going to fly them over here. That leaves the Afghan authorities as the ONLY place they can go!
It’s a testament to the training & professionalism of our troops in the field that they don’t just say, “Screw this” and simply shoot them all, leaving nobody to detain. No “rendition” or “torture” then, guys!
This entire episode is Canadian leftist self-flagellation at its absolute worst.
I understand now Gayle. You care about your country but not the countries troops in the field who put their life on the line every day. Typical lefty socialist. Read Ian’s last line a couple of times. It may help the light to come on for you.
Well if sleep depravation is torture,
my children tortured me for 8 years in a row,
I can document the lack of sleep,
they made me do things, honest!
The Afghan government controls what happens in their own prisons.
The Canadians, both Liberal and Conservative govts, got assurances from a soveriegn govt that the detainees would not be tortured and abused.
Short of going home, or ‘taking no prisoners’ there is NOTHING more Canadians can do,
because Afghanistan is a soveriegn country.
That message was delivered loud and clear when the Supremes ruled that Afghan detainees are NOT entitiled to Charter rights.
Gayle,
Do you seriously suggest that we have members of the Official Opposition ask questions about reports in the media based on speculation and conjecture? I hear Brad Pitt cheated on Angelina Jolie. Maybe Ujjal should bring this up with Stephen Harper.
Sure the allegations are serious. But that’s all they are. Serious. If I make up a story without providing factual evidence, like Amir Attaran has done, and then publish it on my blog, does that mean that Stephen Harper has to answer for it?
What I don’t understand is how you can sit there and accept your Liberal buddies asking questions based on third rate journalism.
What I get from your various postings here is that you don’t think Harper should be questioned on matters that might hurt the CPC. Well, too bad. The allegtions are out there and it would be grossly negligent of the Opposition to ignore them just because some supporters of the CPC are stamping their feet and complaining the Opposition is just mean.
Ahhh, the LPC/Canadian media two-step. LPC makes accusations, Canadian media provides the bullhorn, and then LPC says the Conservatives have to respond because the accusations are ‘out there’. That is so typical of political discourse in this country today. Its right up there with CBC commentators who begin there anti-Conservative reports with, “some people say..”
Yes Adrian. What Brad Pitt does is just as relevant to Canadians as the conduct of our government.
Though I admit I laughed out loud at your suggestion tjhe media is just making this up, pulling it out of thin air witout any factual foundation at all. I guess we will see Harper sue for libel any day now.
Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact the media reports fully disclose their evidence and the sources of that evidence.
You are the one resorting to lies.
Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact the media reports fully disclose their evidence and the sources of that evidence.
This statement is so filled with either political naivete or willful blinkers that it should be preserved in amber. Of course the next time the media lays into a Liberal (albeit on that too rare occasion) will see how much Gayle and LPC hacks trust the ’sources’.
Umm, Joe?
Just because you don’t like the evidence and its source, does not mean it does not exist.
Gayle, just because you like the idea of the existence of evidence, doesn’t mean it does.
Gayle, The media isn’t responsible for the accuracy of the information they broadcast, they’re only responsible to quote accurately people who are willing to go on record criticizing the government. That isn’t journalism it’s stenography. But it’s also why the CBC/Globe love guys like Amir Attaran, because they can get their anti-Harper talking points out into the media space, all the while pretending to be covering ‘a story’, but they have plausible deniablity if its proven later that Amir Attaran is ‘mistaken’ or exposed as partisan slime.
Some facts from BruceR. at “Flit”:
“Not far to render”
More at “The Torch”:
“Afghan detainees: The Liberal government was warned about possible torture/Rendition realities/Must-read Update”
And a broader, er, perspective at “Dust my Broom”:
“Government or politics? Grokking Newspeak”
Mark
Ottawa
Oh Adrian. You cite the evidence in your post, so stop trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
The reason you characterize it as unsubstantiated hearsay is because the media has fully disclosed from where they received the information.
If the media could only ever report things they have personal knowledge of, they would not be able to report much. I wonder whether I would find you making the same complaint if I looked at your old postings about what liberal “insiders” said about Stephane Dion.
joe – it is also why people like Jonathon Kay love those anonymous insiders who give him just enough information so he can smear Kennedy, Dion and Navdeep Bains.
But no doubt you railed about his journalistic ethics too…
Uh, Gayle? Please do read up on the difference between evidence and assertions. Again, this is really stretching the integrity of journalism.
Gayle, I’ll settle for disclosure. If its an anonymous insider, say that in the report. If its sketchily drawn info from one source who has a history with Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal party, then say that. If you describe the Fraser Institute as right wing, then describe centre for Policy Alternatives as left wing. The CBC ’say’ they’re unbiased, I just wish they’d act that way.
Adrian
I take it you do not accept the word of the generals about what they saw in the documents? After all, all they did was make assertions.
Try again.
Oh, and when witnesses testify about what they saw the accused do, we should not accept that as evidence because they are only making assertions.
Joe
Ha ha ha. Your problem is with the source. You think he’s not credible so insist the media have to refer to him as “sketchy”. In that case I insist the media report everything Hillier says as coming from a Harpe lover.
Dear lord. The fact someone has past association with Ignatieff does not meam he lacks credibility. Give your head a shake.
The fact someone has past association with Ignatieff does not meam he lacks credibility.
Gayle, I’m saying let the public know about the association, so that they can judge Mr. Attaran’s credibility for themselves. The CBC forgets that half of its viewers aren’t invested in an anti-Harper agenda yet pays taxes that keep the CBC running. I think because of the public funding CBC has to try A LOT harder to be impartial.
His past association does not impact his credibility.
Do we have to be told Hillier is awfully fond of Harper whenever the nedia mentions his testimony before the committee?
Do we have to be told Hillier is awfully fond of Harper whenever the nedia mentions his testimony before the committee?
I think you would certainly expect and demand such disclosure if Gen Hillier was making some accusations of a Liberal Government. Every person in the news obviously doesn’t have to explain every past association, but I think you’d agree that Mr. Attaran’s statements are obviously controversial and touch upon partisan politics. The fact that he has connections to the Official Opposition is noteworthy.
“I think you would certainly expect and demand such disclosure if Gen Hillier was making some accusations of a Liberal Government.”
Like “decade of darkness”?
Sorry, but bias for Harper does not manifest itself only in context of the LPC.
And, no, I do not agree that Attaran’s statements have to be explained in any context of past association with Michael Ignatieff. I think the man has a lot to lose by lying just to help an old friend, and I expect the people reporting on his statements recognize that too.
You just do not like it because you want people to think he is not credible. And you only want that because what he says hurts Harper.
Gayle, Amir went searching for torture. Is it any surprise he “found” any?
But I could say the same thing about Hillier. He was looking for a way out of the allegations raised by Colvin. Is it any wonder he “found” them? Conveniently, “finding” them just happens to help Harper. Even more conveniently, Harper happens to have control of all the documents that would prove this one way or another.
Try again.