[Newsbot]

Title: Hillier says torture allegations 'ludicrous'
Category: Military
Posted By: gigs
Date: 2009-11-25 20:32:35
Canadian

[gigs]

hmm who should we believe?

[ridenrain]

Sarcasm = 11

Well we all know those right wing, "American" style army people are all dangerous, murdering liars. The noble freedom fighters are only retliating against the tyrany of the George monkey/Hitler Bush and his army of identity christian, neo-con zombies.

[Zipperfish]

Hillier and McKAy are professional liars. Goes with their job description.

But it is nice seeing RR standing up for the Muslims for a change and saying that there is no way that they would torture people. Good for you, RR!

[ridenrain]

Good to see you comming out on the side of freedom in Afghanistan and the Canadian/US coalition.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

Hillier and McKAy are professional liars.

MacKay maybe but niether Hiller or McKenzie are liars. Hiller came out with a book a scant 3 weeks ago that was pretty critical of the CPC. Subsequently 3 weeks ago he was a saint according to the same people who are calling him a liar today.

You want to see a lie? Watch how the Liberal party (not Colvin mind you - the opposition) have been claiming the office has been warned multiple times by Colvin about torture;specifically torture and abuse.

Today we find out this constitutes 2 emails that never contained any of those words but simply echoed concerns by the Red Cross who also admit they don't know for certain. Ironically the most credibile evidence pointing to the knowledge of torture has come from hiller and McKenzie who each outlined exactly what protocol changes were made once they had reason to suspect abuse in specific and limited examples.


There may very well be a lot of people on both sides of the house lying, but it ain't Hiller or MacKenzie. in fact they both seem supremely confident.




EDIT: lol...Colvin, not Calvin.

[DerbyX]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/1 ... eline.html

Quote:

Jan. 29, 2002: Liberal Defence Minister Art Eggleton is under fire in the House of Commons for a delay in telling Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about the capture of al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan by Canadian soldiers. These prisoners were turned over to the Americans for detention. Eggleton tells the House that he first heard of the taking of prisoners on a Friday, but didn't inform Chrétien until the following Tuesday.

Jan. 30, 2002: Eggleton admits he'd known for more than a week that Canadian troops in Afghanistan had taken prisoners and handed them over to U.S. forces.

Feb. 27, 2002: Eggleton appears before a parliamentary committee. He is questioned about contradictory statements he made in the House of Commons about when he first learned that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan had taken prisoners.

May 26, 2002: Eggleton is shuffled out of the defence portfolio.

Late 2005: The Liberal government of Paul Martin reaches a deal with the Afghan government in Kabul on turning over prisoners to the Afghan security service, known as the NDS. Concerns about the fate of those prisoners emerge within months.

February 2006: Conservatives form a new government. Stephen Harper becomes prime minister and names retired Canadian Forces brigadier-general Gordon O'Connor as defence minister.

April 2006: NDP defence critic Dawn Black asks for assurances that the detainee transfers reflect "our values as Canadians" and gets them from O'Connor. "We have no intention of redrafting the agreement," O'Connor tells the House of Commons on April 5. "The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are charged with ensuring the prisoners are not abused."

May 2006: Richard Colvin, a newly arrived senior Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan, begins to send what he would later describe as a series of urgent warnings about the detainees.

"Starting in May 2006, as we in the field became aware of the scope and severity of these problems, we began informing Ottawa about them," Colvin would say in his appearance before the Afghanistan committee on Nov. 18, 2009.

"In our annual human rights report at the end of 2006, we informed them about systemic problems of torture in Afghan jails. By March 2007, we were orally warning Ottawa."

March 4, 2007: Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor tells the Commons that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) would report to Canada about allegations of abuse of detainees handed over to the Afghan authorities by the Canadian Forces.

March 19, 2007: O'Connor apologizes for telling the House that the Red Cross would share information with Ottawa about alleged abuses of detainees after Canadian troops handed them over to Afghan authorities.

"The ICRC is under no obligation to share information with Canada on treatment of detainees handed over to the Afghan authorities," O'Connor says. "The ICRC provides this information to Afghanistan."

April 2007: Afghan prisoners publicly claim of being whipped, beaten, starved and frozen after being turned over to Afghan authorities. Colvin would later testify that he had fired off an urgent message to 71 senior officials in Ottawa. The government maintains it's taking all necessary steps.

"Officials from the government of Canada and the military are in constant communication with not just the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission but with other agencies of the Afghan government to ensure arrangements are being respected," Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells the House on April 24. " If they are not being respected we will obviously act."

Soon after, the government does act, getting the right to monitor detainees. But Colvin would later testify that torture continued until Canada's Foreign Affairs Department began full-time oversight.

Aug. 14, 2007: In a cabinet shuffle, the prime minister names Peter MacKay to replace the embattled O'Connor as defence minister.

October 2007: According to Colvin, Foreign Affairs senior leadership sends a dedicated monitor to Kandahar.

"Within weeks he found incontrovertible evidence of continued torture," Colvin would testify in November 2009. The acting military commander in Kandahar immediately halts transfers. They resume shortly into the new year (2008).

Oct. 9, 2009: Defence Minister Peter MacKay says he never saw any of Colvin's memos. He says the government never received any credible reports of torture, apart from one in October 2007.

"There are hundreds if not thousands of documents, reports, memos, advice that come through all departments. The fact that one report or a series of reports weren't read by a minister or a deputy minister shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone."

Seems to me I recall the opposition CPC relentlessly attacking the Libs over prisoners taken and contradictory statements (remember the photo of the JTF2 escorting prisoners).

[Zipperfish]

Akhenaten wrote:

Quote:

Hillier and McKAy are professional liars.

MacKay maybe but niether Hiller or McKenzie are liars. Hiller came out with a book a scant 3 weeks ago that was pretty critical of the CPC. Subsequently 3 weeks ago he was a saint according to the same people who are calling him a liar today.

You want to see a lie? Watch how the Liberal party (not Colvin mind you - the opposition) have been claiming the office has been warned multiple times by Colvin about torture;specifically torture and abuse.

Today we find out this constitutes 2 emails that never contained any of those words but simply echoed concerns by the Red Cross who also admit they don't know for certain. Ironically the most credibile evidence pointing to the knowledge of torture has come from hiller and McKenzie who each outlined exactly what protocol changes were made once they had reason to suspect abuse in specific and limited examples.


There may very well be a lot of people on both sides of the house lying, but it ain't Hiller or MacKenzie. in fact they both seem supremely confident.




EDIT: lol...Colvin, not Calvin.

Well, I could be wrong, but I'm sticking with it. These guys are acting all shocked at the very notion that Afghanis might mistreat their prisoners. Sorry, I call bullshit.

[EyeBrock]

Zipperfish wrote:

Hillier and McKAy are professional liars. Goes with their job description.

But it is nice seeing RR standing up for the Muslims for a change and saying that there is no way that they would torture people. Good for you, RR!

I'll have McKay being a fibber, he's a politician, they all lie. they are just glorified sales guys.

Hillier, I'd like to see how you can back up your claim that he's a liar.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

These guys are acting all shocked at the very notion that Afghanis might mistreat their prisoners.

That's not what Hiller says at all, Zip. He clearly points out that the possiblity of toture at the hands of Afghan authorities was a known possiblity and points out specifically what actions where taken, and what changes to protocol were made after this information was known to them. What they say about Colvin is that he didn't inform them of jack....and from what we're hearing being reported about the emails at the moment this seems on par.

Quote:

Well, I could be wrong, but I'm sticking with it.

Understandable. You're ok Zip. I trust you to admit it if and when you see evidence that you're wrong. I certainly didn't expect to reverse what you believe with one post.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Hillier and McKAy are professional liars. Goes with their job description.

But it is nice seeing RR standing up for the Muslims for a change and saying that there is no way that they would torture people. Good for you, RR!

I'll have McKay being a fibber, he's a politician, they all lie. they are just glorified sales guys.

Hillier, I'd like to see how you can back up your claim that he's a liar.

No offence but when the subject turns to politicians you often have the same beliefs that diggerdick and acidcomplex have towards cops.

The same burden of proof for lying should be applied to Colvin and McKay just as you want it applied to Hillier.

Colvin has no reason to lie, far from it, he stands to be hurt politically and career wise.

McKay has reason to lie to protect his government just as Hillier has reason to lie to protect the integrity of the military (any for the record nobody is blaming the military for doing what they were told to do with Afghan POWs).

Conversely they may all be telling the truth. Colvin sent in warning memos and they didn't see them.

[Zipperfish]

Akhenaten wrote:

That's not what Hiller says at all, Zip.

Thus the title of the story: "Hillier says torture allegations 'ludicrous'" Riiiight.

Quote:

He clearly points out that the possibility of torture at the hands of Afghan authorities

Source? It's not in the article linked.

From the article wrote:

Hillier said only a few innocent farmers would have been detained by Canadian troops in error, and those innocently detained would have been freed quickly.

That one sets up the old BS meter too!

Don't get me wrong--I got nothing against Hillier--stand up guy as far as I know. I don't even mind Peter McKay. But to get to Hillier's level you have to be able to BS and spin with the best. Which is what it looks like he's doing now.

If you show me the source where he readily admits that, yes, those guys are pretty backwards and have a nasty habit of mistreating people in their clutches, then I'll be happy to retract my statement that he's a professional liar.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

Thus the title of the story: "Hillier says torture allegations 'ludicrous'" Riiiight.

<shrugs> gotta go past the title and look at the context of the statement:

Quote:

he architects of Canada’s military mission in southern Afghanistan dismissed as ludicrous and lacking in substance a diplomat's explosive allegations that the military and government ignored his warnings that prisoners were being handed over to face torture.

Retired general Rick Hiller, who led the military as Chief of the Defence Staff when the Canadian Forces moved into Afghanistan's deadly Kandahar province in 2006, told a parliamentary committee that memos from diplomat Richard Colvin from mid-2006 to mid-2007 contained no real alarms about torture that would cause military brass to act.

Mr. Hillier, insisting the diplomat had no basis for his sweeping claims, ridiculed the allegation that all detainees handed over to Afghans were likely tortured. "How ludicrous a statement is that?" he said.

...


Mr. Hillier told MPs that Mr. Colvin’s early reports – which the diplomat has said concerned the treatment and monitoring of detainees – “said nothing about abuse, nothing about torture, or anything else that would have caught my attention or the attention of others.”

When Canada stopped detainee transfers in 2007, Mr. Hillier said, “we didn’t base it on hearsay, hypothesis or second-hand information. We didn’t base it on Taliban detainees saying things without corroborating evidence.”

....so that sentence is another journalists characterization of what was said. In that same link they go on to point out how detaniees protocol was changed to have the prisoners they handed over to be monitored. First by independent rights groups and then later by the military itself.

Quote:

If you show me the source where he readily admits that, yes, those guys are pretty backwards and have a nasty habit of mistreating people in their clutches, then I'll be happy to retract my statement that he's a professional liar.

I'll have to go back and find McKenzies statements. Stand by.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong--I got nothing against Hillier

I know. Your skepticism isnt unfounded or silly.

[Akhenaten]

Zip:
Okay here's what MacKenzie says, and in my opinion it sounds a lot more level headed and realistic than what's being thrown around the house of commons at the moment:

Quote:

Once again, and to no surprise, “gotcha” politics has reared its ugly head on Parliament Hill.

The evidence given by foreign service officer Richard Colvin to a House of Commons committee regarding alleged abuse and even torture of Canadian-captured detainees by Afghan prison authorities has consumed Question Period for days. Serious discussions of the mission in Afghanistan, long overdue, have been thwarted by questions regarding who knew what and when.

With due respect, a Commons committee is probably one of the worst forums to deal with the matter of prisoner abuse and potential Canadian complicity. Names of highly respected individuals have been dragged through the mud with no chance to defend themselves. Statements made by witnesses, including Mr. Colvin, are accepted by some and rejected by others, and the opinions of committee members are entirely predictable, depending on their political affiliation.

Unchallenged statements have made the headlines in the popular press. “Nearly 600 detainees may have been turned over to Afghan security forces.” This fact, which should be a source of pride, is described as “six times as many detainees” as the British handed over in the same period.

There is a pretty good reason for the big difference. The British weren't in Taliban-dominated southern Afghanistan during a good deal of that same period. Parliamentary debate in Britain and the Netherlands delayed the troops' arrival by several months.

The tardy arrival of British and Dutch contingents also delayed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters, dictating that the Canadian battle group operate for the first half of 2006 as a component of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom.

Also contributing to the difference in the numbers of prisoners handed over, and contrary to many recent erroneous opinions on the subject, Helmand province was relatively quiet when the British contingent arrived. Meanwhile, the Canadian battle group had been fighting battles with the Taliban in Kandahar for more than four months, taking a lot of prisoners.

When the NATO headquarters assumed command in the south on July 31, 2006, surprisingly, there was no alliance policy for the handling of detainees other than holding them for no more than 96 hours before releasing them or handing them over to Afghan authorities. It was left to each of the member nations to decide on any follow-up action.

Turning prisoners over to the authorities of the sovereign nation that the United Nations and NATO had come to support was certainly not an unreasonable decision. After the suicide-bomber killing of diplomat Glyn Berry, there was a dearth of Canadian civilians serving in Afghanistan, particularly in the south. Canadians were fighting major battles and the objective was to remove as many Taliban from the Canadian area of responsibility as possible. After an initial interrogation, those who were captured were transferred to Afghan authorities.

As evidence surfaced suggesting that prisoners were being abused, Canada developed a new protocol, implemented in May of 2007, that included monitoring the location of detainees in the prison system, follow-up interviews with them and frequent visits to Afghan prisons (more than 180 in the past 18 months) by qualified personnel.

Returning to the issue of hope trumping common sense as we wait for the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan to treat the detainee matter in a non-partisan way, there is a much better solution staring us in the face.

In the wake of the Somalia inquiry and resulting reviews of Canadian Forces policy, the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial agency, was established in 1998.

Two and a half years ago, two complaints regarding the very issue currently being debated in Parliament were filed with the MPCC. Its efforts to proceed in a timely manner have been thwarted as lawyers on both sides argued whether the MPCC's mandate permitted it to investigate the charges that the Canadian Military Police turned detainees over to Afghan authorities knowing they would be abused. It was judged that the issue was an operational matter and not within the commission's jurisdiction. The hearings were suspended a few weeks back.

A public inquiry would be a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. The government should put the file back into the MPCC's lap and direct all players to co-operate. The commission has the highly qualified staff necessary to get to the truth of the matter in the most cost-effective manner.

I think this is a lot closer to the mark. Remarks about changing protocol are mid-way,bolded.

I don't think there's a word of a lie in that entire article.

[putz]

Do most of you people not notice that the time period that these particular prisoners were taken was during the start and into the heaviest fighting since Korea? I doubt that a lot of these Afghans were "innocent farmers". Most of the farmers had fled the Zhari and Panjawai districts... or am I wrong??