BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- the horrific
betrayal of Canadian troops whlst at war in Afghanistan- NDP/Green/Bloc - and
Civil Liberties BC (who make $$$$millions off our tax dollars) - alleged
torture of Afghan Terrorists transfered to Afghan authorities by Canadian
troops.... A BIG READ if interested /PART 1
---------------------
Table 1:
ISAF states and detainee transfers(62)
|
Status of
MoU
|
Countries
|
Governments
with signed MoUs or agreements with the Afghan government regarding the
transfer of detainees
|
Canada,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, UK
|
Governments
pursuing an MoU or agreement with the Afghan government regarding the
transfer of detainees
|
Belgium,
France, Germany, Sweden
|
Governments
who have an agreement with a second ISAF state regarding the transfer of
detainees. Detainees are then transferred from the second ISAF state (the UK
or Dutch) to the Afghan authorities as per their MoUs.
|
Estonia
(with the UK), Australia (with the Netherlands)
|
Governments
with no agreement or MoU
|
Lithuania,
Poland, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic
|
Governments
unable to verify the presence of an MoU
|
Bulgaria,
Macedonia
|
------------
David
Akin: Canadian forces respond to translator’s allegations
David Akin: Canadian forces reply
to translator’s allegations
16 Apr 2010
Mr. Kevin Sorenson
Chair
Special Committee upon a Canadian Mission in Afghanistan
House of Commons
131 Queen Street
Ottawa ON
K1A 0A6
Chair
Special Committee upon a Canadian Mission in Afghanistan
House of Commons
131 Queen Street
Ottawa ON
K1A 0A6
Mr. Chair,
I am essay to you currently to
yield significant report following accusations finished by Mr. Ahmadshah Malgarai upon Apr 14th, 2010 prior to a
Committee. Mr. Malgarai finished a series of accusations in his
appearance that have been being looked in to by a Canadian Forces,
though by distant a many gross was that a Canadian Forces part of unlawfully
shot as good as killed an sold in 2007.
Based upon a report disclosed in
Mr. Malgarai's testimony, a Canadian Forces have each reason to hold that you
have identified a eventuality in question.
During a night from a 18th as good
as 19th of Jun 2007, a Canadian-led operation, upheld by Afghan as good as bloc
forces, was launched upon a devalue compared with IED-making activity. The
devalue was suspected to be a entertainment area for space station attacks
opposite Kandahar Airfield as good as IED attacks opposite Canadian as good as
bloc soldiers. Details of this eventuality have been really good documented. A
full year of comprehension entertainment by a CF as good as a bloc partners was
finished prior to this Canadian-led operation.
Operation reports that unfortunately
cannot be finished open as they enclose supportive report about tactics,
techniques as good as procedures, prove that during a goal an armed sold acted
a approach as good as approaching hazard to CF soldiers as they entered a
compound. A shooter who was upon condition that await to a operation identified
a sold as good as assessed that he was a threat, as good as shot a individual.
The actions of a shooter were an suitable focus of a manners of rendezvous as
good as saved a lives of a series of Canadian Forces members that night. This
sold was armed as good as was never detained.
During a march of a operation, 10
Afghans were detained. Nine of these detainees tested certain for bomb residue.
In suitability with customary procedures, these detainees were taken to
Kandahar Airfield where they were processed as good as dynamic to be uninjured
as good as in good health. During tactical doubt of a detainees, dual people
finished allegations that bloc forces had planted a pistol upon a defunct
insurgent. It is value observant that a single of a dual people after retracted
his allegation.
Immediately following a mission, an
after-action examination was conducted to examination a actions as good as
outcomes of a operation. It was dynamic that all germane manners of rendezvous
as good as entertainment station orders were followed.
As you have been good aware, prior
to transferring a detainee in to Afghan custody, a Canadian Task Force
Commander contingency be confident that there is no estimable drift for desiring
that there exists a genuine risk that a detainee would be in risk of being
subjected to woe or alternative forms of indignity during a hands of Afghan
authorities. The Canadian Forces do not send people for a purposes of
entertainment information.
In this sold case, a Commander
during a time deliberate all a applicable report during his ordering as good as
finished a integrity to send all 10 people to a NDS in sequence to concede
Afghan authorities to establish either rapist charge was warranted. This is in
suitability with a detainee send arrangements with a Government of Afghanistan.
All people eliminated were scrupulously monitored as good as tracked by
Canada's monitoring mechanisms.
I wish all cabinet members to know
that a Canadian Forces take all allegations severely as good as will examine
brand new allegations appropriately. Whenever there have been specific
allegations, a Canadian Forces have not hesitated to act. As a outcome of Mr.
Malgarai's testimony, a Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is
conducting an inquisitive assessment. And you acquire any sold who has any
applicable report about this eventuality to come brazen as good as yield a
sworn statement.
It is critical for cabinet members
as good as Canadians to commend that you have been conducting operations in a
antagonistic environment. The Canadian Forces have regularly been as good as
sojourn committed to ensuring that detainees have been rubbed as good as
eliminated in suitability with a obligations underneath general law. We hold in
support a values of justice, apply oneself for tellurian rights as good as a
grace of a individual.
Finally, you consider that it is
critical to keep in thoughts a good work that a group as good as women have
been you do in Afghanistan. Since a commencement of a rendezvous in
Afghanistan, a little 30,000 soldiers, sailors as good as airmen as good as
women have helped a people of Afghanistan set up towards a brighter future.
These group as good as women in unvaried have been in harm's way. They have
been operative upon interest of all Canadians in really formidable conditions
as good as they go upon to denote good aplomb as good as compassion.
I certitude that this report gives
you a clearer design of what essentially happened upon a belligerent that dusk
in Jun 2007 as good as demonstrates a lengths to that a Canadian Forces go to
safeguard you control ourselves professionally, justly as good as in
suitability with a order of law.
Sincerely,
W. J. Natynczyk
General
Chief of a Defence Staff
General
Chief of a Defence Staff
Source: network.nationalpost.com
University of Ottawa law professor
Amir Attaran, a critic of the way Canada has handled itself in Afghanistan,
still has some issues with the general.
Who is paying their salaries... ie bc and amnesty
--------------
LET'S ORGANIZE AND SAVE OUR CANADIAN
MILITARY IN AFGHANSITAN AND THE ABUSE PROPAGANDA AGAINST THEM...
Am on a
mission.... to unravel this mess of charges being laid against our Canadian
Sons and Daughters... bleeding and dying in this Fudge Up called
Afghansitan.... and being directly placed on our Nato troops shoulders WHILST
OUR Canadian children are serving.... in the fields of Afghansitan... check out
the UK.... will post the USA.... and Canada findings.... AS U CAN SEE.... this
is going on globally AGAINST OUR FREE NATIONS...FROM THE UN... and a
subsidary.... the basics will dig around are:
DEFINE ABUSE OF DETAINEES IN
AFGHANISTAN DEFINE IT....
WHAT is it... about... entail...
definition... legal definition... standards..what real goals over 'presumed
goals'....
WHO is it actually being aimed
at- who and who as a group... are these
instigators truly after... as they are American ? Canadian? and work on many
forms of these areas $$$$$tax dollars they make of the backs of every day
citizens.... oh yeah! And who exactly-
what names ... who do 'this tribe' really want.
WHEN- what's the timelines.... deadlines.... when
did this start.... when did this occur.... when did ACTUAL evidence come to
light... is there evidence... actual
WHERE = where did this start... what country....
and if it comes out UN-NATO or subsidary.... nail them... and hard...
WHY- what's the actual
point..... why NOW.... at this time....
why NOT 2011 AFTER OUR TROOPS ARRIVE HOME-
aaaaaaaah..... tons of responses on this.... election- if this is simply
over an election-- oh WELL... guess what-
we are all tasked with getting as much info as possible and evidence....
it's out there.... and tasking it to a team to lay a huge lawsuit.......
against 'the instigators..... each and all".... now that's union... and
that's sooooo Canadian
FOR WHAT PURPOSE-
WHAT IS THE END RESULT ASKED FOR??
----------------
Canada commission concludes Afghan
detainees not abused in custody
Jaclyn Belczyk at 10:08 AM ET April 28 2009
Jaclyn Belczyk at 10:08 AM ET April 28 2009
[JURIST] The Canadian Military
Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) [official website] released a report [text, PDF] Monday concluding that three Afghan detainees were not mistreated [press
release] while in Canadian military police custody in Kandahar in 2006. The
probe began following a civilian complaint filed by University of Ottawa law
professor Amir Attaran [faculty profile], whose research
uncovered a pattern of suspicious injuries on three detainees captured in April
2006 and later released. The MPCC found:
that the allegation of inhumane treatment of the detainees
by military police members is not substantiated in that: no harm was caused to
the detainees by any acts or omissions on the part of the military police; and,
the detainees were afforded prompt and appropriate medical care while in
military police custody.
The report also found that the military police failed to
investigate the cause of a head injury to one of the detainees and that they
should have done so. The report recommends further study on the role of
military police and more comprehensive training and research.
The Canadian government ordered the inquiry [JURIST report] in February 2007. Monday's report dealt only with allegations by Attaran. There are ongoing investigations into complaints [JURIST report] filed by Amnesty International Canada (AIC) and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) [advocacy websites]. Following public outcry, Canada signed a new agreement regarding detainee transfers [JURIST report] with the Afghan government in May 2007, giving Canada the right to inspect detainees following their transfer.
The Canadian government ordered the inquiry [JURIST report] in February 2007. Monday's report dealt only with allegations by Attaran. There are ongoing investigations into complaints [JURIST report] filed by Amnesty International Canada (AIC) and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) [advocacy websites]. Following public outcry, Canada signed a new agreement regarding detainee transfers [JURIST report] with the Afghan government in May 2007, giving Canada the right to inspect detainees following their transfer.
WHICH RESULTED IN...
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Canada signs new detainee transfer
agreement with Afghan government
Bernard Hibbitts at 5:12 PM ET
[JURIST] Lawyers for the Canadian
government said in an affidavit Thursday that Canada and Afghanistan have
formally signed a new agreement allowing for monitoring of prisoners transferred
from Canadian to Afghan custody as a safeguard against torture and abuse.
Following submission of the affidavit, a Federal Court judge in British
Columbia halted an injunction [JURIST report] action brought by Amnesty
International and the BC Civil Liberties union which had sought to suspend any
additional transfers until effective monitoring was established. CTV News has
more.
The Canadian government has been
deeply embroiled in controversy over the torture issue since the Toronto Globe
and Mail reported [text] late last month that thirty terror suspects were
tortured by Afghan security forces after being transferred from the custody of
Canadian troops belonging to NATO's ISAF [official website] mission. The
detainees gave accounts of being beaten, electrocuted, starved, and left in
freezing temperatures while detained in Kandahar province jails. The report
prompted calls for the resignation [JURIST report] of Canadian Defense Minister
Gordon O'Connor [official profile], for an end to the prison transfers, for a
public inquiry, and even for an International Criminal Court investigation of
"possible war crimes" [JURIST report] committed by Canadian
officials.
In 2005, Chief of Defense Staff
Gen. Rick Hillier [official profile] signed an initial Canada-Afghanistan
Detainee Agreement [text] authorizing prisoner transfers, but critics said the
agreement did not give Canada the power to inspect detainees [JURIST report]
after their transfers, thus allowing broad latitude for torture to occur. Last
week O'Connor said that Canada had made a new informal agreement with the
Afghanistan government [JURIST report] to monitor the condition of transferred
prisoners after their release.
Not Child's Play: Revisiting the
Law of Child Soldiers
Lt. Col. Chris Jenks
US Army
------------------
Canada-Afghanistan detainee
agreement allows torture: rights groups
Joshua Pantesco at 12:39 PM ET February 21, 2007
Joshua Pantesco at 12:39 PM ET February 21, 2007
[JURIST] Two human rights groups have called on Canada's
Federal Court to review the legality of terrorism detainee transfer procedures
under the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement [text]. Amnesty International
Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
[advocacy websites] filed an application for judicial review Wednesday,
alleging that the transfer of terrorist suspects from the custody of the
Canadian Forces to Afghanistan may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text; fact sheet] and various international human
rights obligations. The groups allege that Afghanistan tortures detainees.
Amir Attaran [official profile], a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote an opinion letter [PDF] last April, concluding that:
Amir Attaran [official profile], a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote an opinion letter [PDF] last April, concluding that:
[t]he Arrangement fails to meet the minimum standards of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the care that
Canadian Forces must take under Canada’s constitution to prevent detainees from
being tortured after they are transferred to Afghanistan or another country.
This problem is serious, and probably would result in the Arrangement being
declared unconstitutional if it were judicially reviewed in a Canadian court.
Lawyers for the advocacy groups say the judicial review
will raise significant legal issues, such as whether the Geneva Conventions
apply when Canadian forces assert that terrorists are not "enemy
combatants" under the Conventions, and whether the Charter extends due
process rights to such combatants. Similar issues were raised by the US Supreme
Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [opinion PDF; JURIST report], where the Court held in part that Article 3 [text] of the Geneva Conventions applies even though the US is at war with
al Qaeda, which is not a signatory to the Conventions. The US military
subsequently reversed its Article 3 policy [JURIST report] and
decided that the Article 3 safeguards apply to all detainees in US custody. The
Globe and Mail has more. Read the Amnesty International Canada press release.
-----------------
Saturday, November 17, 2007
 |
Canadian MPs call for ending detainee transfers to Afghan
authorities
Devin Montgomery at 2:58 PM ET
Devin Montgomery at 2:58 PM ET
[JURIST]
Canadian opposition parliamentarians Dennis
Coderre (Liberal) and Paul Dewar (NDP) [official websites] Friday
called for Canada's government to stop allowing detainees captured by Canadian
forces in Afghanistan to be transferred to Afghan custody, alleging that once
transferred, suspects are subjected to conditions that violate the Geneva
Convention. Heavily redacted documents [text] released by the
government earlier this week under a court order appear to show that even
before press reports this spring Canadian officials had
significant evidence that transferred suspects had been abused and that some
had disappeared altogether. During question period [official transcript] in the
House of Commons Friday, Dewar and Coderre engaged in a heated debate with
government MP Laurie
Hawn [official website], Parliamentary Secretary to Canada's
Minister of National Defence:
Dewar: Mr.
Speaker, the Conservative government has been forced by a judge to release
documents the NDP has been demanding for months. In the heavily censored documents,
we have confirmed three key facts. One: the government was aware of conditions
in Afghan prisons at the same time ministers claimed they knew nothing. Two:
Canada is incapable of tracking all of its prisoners in over 600 Afghan
prisons. Three: the detainee agreement is not being respected.... Is the
government finally willing to admit it has been caught? Is it willing to admit
that it is in violation of the Geneva Convention or do the Conservatives
believe the Geneva Conventions are simply a suggestion list?
Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that question is ridiculous. Canada abides by the Geneva Convention. The primary responsibility rests with the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. It is obliged to abide by the Geneva Convention. We brought forward an arrangement in May of last year that is superior to the one that was in place previous to that. We are abiding by all measures. We are abiding by all requirements....
Coderre: Mr. Speaker, Canada violated the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. Even worse, by setting out to hide the truth that it has known since the start, this Conservative government has deliberately violated the convention. It must immediately stop the transfers and repatriate the prisoners who have already been transferred....
Hawn: Mr. Speaker, and that is more of the same. The challenges highlighted in the recent reports just indicate that Canada is required to be there to continue helping the Afghan authorities to build their judicial system, to build their prison system, to build their governance systems, to rebuild their country and give them back the country that was stolen from them, and to give Afghan women, children and men back their lives. We are not abusing anybody's rights. We are working together with the Afghan authorities to ensure that those rights are sustained under the Geneva Convention and every other agreement we have entered into.
Hawn: Mr. Speaker, that question is ridiculous. Canada abides by the Geneva Convention. The primary responsibility rests with the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. It is obliged to abide by the Geneva Convention. We brought forward an arrangement in May of last year that is superior to the one that was in place previous to that. We are abiding by all measures. We are abiding by all requirements....
Coderre: Mr. Speaker, Canada violated the Geneva Convention in Afghanistan. Even worse, by setting out to hide the truth that it has known since the start, this Conservative government has deliberately violated the convention. It must immediately stop the transfers and repatriate the prisoners who have already been transferred....
Hawn: Mr. Speaker, and that is more of the same. The challenges highlighted in the recent reports just indicate that Canada is required to be there to continue helping the Afghan authorities to build their judicial system, to build their prison system, to build their governance systems, to rebuild their country and give them back the country that was stolen from them, and to give Afghan women, children and men back their lives. We are not abusing anybody's rights. We are working together with the Afghan authorities to ensure that those rights are sustained under the Geneva Convention and every other agreement we have entered into.
The Globe
and Mail has more.
Last month, Amnesty International accused [JURIST report] the Canadian government of trying to derail a lawsuit over whether the Canadian Army [official website] in Afghanistan was transferring custody of detainees to Afghan forces to face torture by bogging down the lawsuit with a flurry of technical arguments. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] brought complaints against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal [official website] in Canada's Federal Court in February, alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) [official website]. In September, the Canadian Army said that independent investigators found no evidence to support allegations [JURIST reports] that the Army "may have aided or abetted the torture of detainees" by transferring them to Afghan custody. The Federal Court ruled earlier this month that the two advocacy groups should be granted public interest standing [JURIST report] to seek judicial review of the Canadian military's actions.
Last month, Amnesty International accused [JURIST report] the Canadian government of trying to derail a lawsuit over whether the Canadian Army [official website] in Afghanistan was transferring custody of detainees to Afghan forces to face torture by bogging down the lawsuit with a flurry of technical arguments. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] brought complaints against the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal [official website] in Canada's Federal Court in February, alleging complicity in torture by Canadian personnel serving in Afghanistan as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) [official website]. In September, the Canadian Army said that independent investigators found no evidence to support allegations [JURIST reports] that the Army "may have aided or abetted the torture of detainees" by transferring them to Afghan custody. The Federal Court ruled earlier this month that the two advocacy groups should be granted public interest standing [JURIST report] to seek judicial review of the Canadian military's actions.
-----------------
Commission Set to Begin Probe of Afghan Detainees, Rights
Groups Head to Hearings
On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, lawyers for Amnesty
International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) will
return to hearings before the Military Police Complaints Commission. The
Commission has launched an important inquiry to determine what military police
officers knew about the torture of prisoners transferred from Canadian to
Afghan custody, and what efforts, if any, they made to investigate when it
became evident that transferred detainees were being abused.
Senior officials from the Canadian Forces, National Defence
and Foreign Affairs have been called to testify before the Commission.
The hearings are based on complaints that were filed by
Amnesty and the BCCLA in 2007 and 2008. Since the filing of the complaints,
more information about the conditions for these prisoners has been made public.
For example, evidence from a report by a Canadian official visiting the
Afghanistan National Directorate of Security prison in Kandahar, on 5 November,
2007 noted that implements of torture described by a prisoner were discovered
in his cell.
“Information obtained by human rights monitoring groups and the recent testimony of senior diplomat Richard Colvin strongly suggests that Canada’s conduct in Afghanistan is in serious breach of domestic law and its international obligations” says Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty. “The government’s continued secrecy and obstruction has prevented transparency and accountability. The proof of torture in Afghan prisons and the proof that transferred prisoners have been tortured is overwhelming, and it is very disturbing.”
“Information obtained by human rights monitoring groups and the recent testimony of senior diplomat Richard Colvin strongly suggests that Canada’s conduct in Afghanistan is in serious breach of domestic law and its international obligations” says Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty. “The government’s continued secrecy and obstruction has prevented transparency and accountability. The proof of torture in Afghan prisons and the proof that transferred prisoners have been tortured is overwhelming, and it is very disturbing.”
“The role of the military police and the responsibility of
the officers in charge of these transfers must be examined,” says Grace
Pastine, Litigation Director for the BCCLA. “High-ranking military officials
were aware that former Canadian Forces detainees were likely tortured by Afghan
authorities, yet they failed to investigate whether any members of the Canadian
Forces should be charged for their role in facilitating these crimes. The
public has a right to know why there was a failure to investigate these very
serious breaches of domestic and international law.”
The Canadian military has been handing over captured
Afghans to Afghan authorities since late 2005. The United Nations, foreign
governments, international organizations and Afghanistan’s own independent
human rights commission have all documented pervasive and widespread torture in
Afghanistan, but the federal government has insisted that the claims were
baseless.
The use of torture is absolutely prohibited under Canadian
and international law, under all circumstances. The universal prohibition
against torture does not simply mean that the government shouldn’t engage in
torture, however. It also means that a government has a duty to prevent the
perpetration of torture and to ensure that it is not responsible for delivering
individuals to situations in which they would face a serious risk of torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The federal government has repeatedly attempted to shut
down the inquiry. Federal lawyers argued that the MPCC lacks jurisdiction to
hear the complaints and have tried to prohibit the MPCC from proceeding. The
Commission originally began hearings in June 2009, but the hearings were derailed
after the federal government failed to provide documents to the Commission and
challenged the Commission’s jurisdiction in Federal Court.
Witnesses who are tentatively scheduled to appear the week
of April 6 are Sgt Utton, Capt Bouchard, Capt (ret’d) Naipaul, and Major
Bolduc.
The Commission is a quasi-judicial body which was
established by Parliament to provide for greater public accountability by the
Canadian Forces military police and the chain of command. The Commission is
independent of both the Department of National Defense and the Canadian Forces.
The witness hearings will commence on Tuesday, April 6,
2010 at 9:00 AM at 270 Albert Street, 10th floor, in Ottawa, Ontario and are
estimated to continue for six weeks. It is planned that the Commission will
hold hearings Monday to Thursday. The sitting will begin each day at 9:00 AM,
break at noon, and resume in the afternoon from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM.
Amnesty and the BCCLA are represented by lawyers Paul
Champ, Carmen Cheung, Khalid Elgazzar, and Grace Pastine.
Further information about the work of Amnesty and the BCCLA
to prevent the torture of Afghan detainees can be found at http://www.bccla.org/antiterrorissue/afghan_detainee.html
--------------------
Why the BCCLA Is Concerned About the Torture of Afghan
Detainees
The use of torture is absolutely prohibited under Canadian
and international law. What this means is that torture is prohibited under all
circumstances, and that there can never be situation where the use of torture
can be justified. The universal prohibition against torture does not simply
mean that the government shouldn’t engage in torture or be complicit in
torture, however.
It also means that a government has a duty to prevent the perpetration of torture and to ensure that it is not responsible for delivering individuals to situations in which they would be at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
During the course of its military operations in Afghanistan, Canadian forces routinely take prisoners. In this context, Canada’s obligation to prevent torture means two things:
It also means that a government has a duty to prevent the perpetration of torture and to ensure that it is not responsible for delivering individuals to situations in which they would be at risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
During the course of its military operations in Afghanistan, Canadian forces routinely take prisoners. In this context, Canada’s obligation to prevent torture means two things:
·
First, Canadian troops are not allowed to
engage in acts of torture against these prisoners.
·
Second, Canada cannot transfer these
prisoners to the Afghan government if it has any knowledge that these prisoners
would face a substantial risk of torture at the hands of the Afghans.
If the Canadian government was aware that prisoners were
being tortured by Afghan officials, and yet continued to transfer individuals
into Afghan custody, Canada would acting in violation of the universal
prohibition against torture. Information obtained by human rights monitoring
groups and the recent testimony of senior diplomat Richard Colvin all suggest
strongly that Canada’s conduct in Afghanistan is in serious breach of its
international obligations and fails to live up to basic Charter principles.
The Canadian government has stated on numerous occasions that its military and agents do not torture. Canada has confirmed its commitment to preventing torture by entering into international agreements aimed at eradicating torture. Canada can maintain fidelity to these commitments only if it ensures that it neither engages in torture, is complicit in torture, nor knowingly delivers individuals to the risk of torture.
The Canadian government has stated on numerous occasions that its military and agents do not torture. Canada has confirmed its commitment to preventing torture by entering into international agreements aimed at eradicating torture. Canada can maintain fidelity to these commitments only if it ensures that it neither engages in torture, is complicit in torture, nor knowingly delivers individuals to the risk of torture.
... AND HERE IT IS...
History of the BCCLA’s Involvement in Afghan Detainee Issues
The BCCLA has long been concerned with the treatment of
prisoners apprehended by Canadian forces during military operations in
Afghanistan.
As early as 2002, when Canada first entered into the current conflict in Afghanistan, the BCCLA called for a halt to the transfer of prisoners to U.S. custody, given the serious human rights concerns about the treatment of prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan and the troubling likelihood of that prisoners would be further transferred to Guantánamo Bay.
We advocated for a system of handling prisoners which would conform to Canada’s international human rights obligations and be consistent with the principles enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2005, the Canadian forces began transferring prisoners to the custody of Afghan officials. We voiced our concerns about this arrangement, given the widespread use of torture in Afghan prisons. Along with Amnesty International, we instead urged that Canadian forces work with the Afghan government and NATO allies to develop a system for handling detainees which would ensure that prisoners would be protected from torture and abuse.
We saw this as an opportunity for Canada to assist Afghanistan in reforming its notorious prison system and to play an important role in furthering the goal of eradicating torture worldwide.
By 2007, we saw little effort being made by the government to ensure that Afghan detainees were being treated humanely, so we were compelled to turn to the courts and tribunals for assistance. Along with Amnesty, we launched a Federal Court application for an order to halt the transfers and filed two complaints with the Military Police Complaints Commission (“MPCC”) challenging the transfers. These actions have been aggressively contested by the Canadian government.
The government sought to have the Federal Court application dismissed on procedural grounds, and was successful in its argument that the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply to Canadian forces acting in Afghanistan. However, during the course of that litigation, we learned important evidence of Canada’s knowledge of torture in the Afghan prison system and the risks faced by prisoners transferred by Canadian forces to Afghan custody.
More information about the Federal Court litigation, including copies of emails and other documents relating to the detainee transfers obtained from the government, is available here.
Meanwhile, the government has thrown up innumerable roadblocks to stall and delay the MPCC process. In response to our complaints, the MPCC established public interest hearings to investigate the conduct of the military police, which is the branch of the Canadian forces responsible for prisoner transfers from Canadian to Afghan custody. Rather than permitting the hearings to proceed, the government challenged the jurisdiction of the MPCC to conduct an investigation, and that litigation is still before the courts.
The government has also been largely unresponsive to the Commission’s requests for documents and witnesses, taking over a year to censor and hand over records to the MPCC and refusing to grant access to crucial witnesses. As a result of the government’s refusal to provide necessary information to the Commission for its investigation, the MPCC hearings were suspended indefinitely in October 2009. More information about the MPCC’s Afghanistan Public Interest hearings, including our complaints to the Commission, is available here.
Concerned by the government’s secrecy and continued obstruction of the MPCC process, Parliament began calling witnesses to testify about the detainee transfer process. These hearings are ongoing, though the testimony that has already been given is deeply troubling. Senior diplomat Richard Colvin testified that Canadian officials at the highest levels of seniority were made aware of serious concerns that Afghan prisoners were being subjected torture and other human rights violations.
David Mulroney, the former chief diplomat for Afghanistan and the current ambassador to China, conceded during his testimony that he was aware, as early as 2006, that there were problems in Afghan prisons, and testified that he was also aware of allegations that the governor of Kandahar ran a series of torture chambers.
As early as 2002, when Canada first entered into the current conflict in Afghanistan, the BCCLA called for a halt to the transfer of prisoners to U.S. custody, given the serious human rights concerns about the treatment of prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan and the troubling likelihood of that prisoners would be further transferred to Guantánamo Bay.
We advocated for a system of handling prisoners which would conform to Canada’s international human rights obligations and be consistent with the principles enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2005, the Canadian forces began transferring prisoners to the custody of Afghan officials. We voiced our concerns about this arrangement, given the widespread use of torture in Afghan prisons. Along with Amnesty International, we instead urged that Canadian forces work with the Afghan government and NATO allies to develop a system for handling detainees which would ensure that prisoners would be protected from torture and abuse.
We saw this as an opportunity for Canada to assist Afghanistan in reforming its notorious prison system and to play an important role in furthering the goal of eradicating torture worldwide.
By 2007, we saw little effort being made by the government to ensure that Afghan detainees were being treated humanely, so we were compelled to turn to the courts and tribunals for assistance. Along with Amnesty, we launched a Federal Court application for an order to halt the transfers and filed two complaints with the Military Police Complaints Commission (“MPCC”) challenging the transfers. These actions have been aggressively contested by the Canadian government.
The government sought to have the Federal Court application dismissed on procedural grounds, and was successful in its argument that the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not apply to Canadian forces acting in Afghanistan. However, during the course of that litigation, we learned important evidence of Canada’s knowledge of torture in the Afghan prison system and the risks faced by prisoners transferred by Canadian forces to Afghan custody.
More information about the Federal Court litigation, including copies of emails and other documents relating to the detainee transfers obtained from the government, is available here.
Meanwhile, the government has thrown up innumerable roadblocks to stall and delay the MPCC process. In response to our complaints, the MPCC established public interest hearings to investigate the conduct of the military police, which is the branch of the Canadian forces responsible for prisoner transfers from Canadian to Afghan custody. Rather than permitting the hearings to proceed, the government challenged the jurisdiction of the MPCC to conduct an investigation, and that litigation is still before the courts.
The government has also been largely unresponsive to the Commission’s requests for documents and witnesses, taking over a year to censor and hand over records to the MPCC and refusing to grant access to crucial witnesses. As a result of the government’s refusal to provide necessary information to the Commission for its investigation, the MPCC hearings were suspended indefinitely in October 2009. More information about the MPCC’s Afghanistan Public Interest hearings, including our complaints to the Commission, is available here.
Concerned by the government’s secrecy and continued obstruction of the MPCC process, Parliament began calling witnesses to testify about the detainee transfer process. These hearings are ongoing, though the testimony that has already been given is deeply troubling. Senior diplomat Richard Colvin testified that Canadian officials at the highest levels of seniority were made aware of serious concerns that Afghan prisoners were being subjected torture and other human rights violations.
David Mulroney, the former chief diplomat for Afghanistan and the current ambassador to China, conceded during his testimony that he was aware, as early as 2006, that there were problems in Afghan prisons, and testified that he was also aware of allegations that the governor of Kandahar ran a series of torture chambers.
-------------------
APPLICANTS’ MATERIALS
RESPONDENTS’ MATERIALS
FACTUMS & JUDGMENTS
Justice Kelen, 3 May 2007, adjourning injunction
application sine die
Motion on an interlocutory injunction to stop detainee
transfers to a substantial risk of torture
Motion on the questions of law on the applicability of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canadian Forces detention and transfer
operations in Afghanistan
AND...
COURT
INDEX AND DOCKET
RECORDED ENTRY(IES) FOR T-324-07
|
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
|
||||||
Court Number :
|
T-324-07
|
||||||
Style of Cause :
|
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA ET AL v.
AGC ET AL
|
||||||
Proceeding Category :
|
Applications
|
Nature :
|
S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review
|
||||
Type of Action :
|
Non-Action
|
||||||
( 203 records found )
Doc |
Date Filed
|
Office
|
Recorded Entry Summary
|
||
-
|
2007-04-20
|
Ottawa
|
Letter
from Respondents dated 20-APR-2007 stating that parties have agreed on a
joint plan to deal with their respective interlocutory motions. The
Respondents will bring a motion to strike the application and, in the
alternative, for an order extending the time for filing the Respondent's
affidavits. The Applicants will bring a motion for and interlocutory
injunction. The parties propose that the motions be heard together and
request that a special hearing be set down for the next available dates on
which counsel are available. Once hearing dates are set, the parties will
agree on a schedule for filing of affidavits and factums. The parties have
agreed that is the Respondents' motion to strike is dismissed and the
application proceeds then the parties will request that the case be specially
managed. The motion for an extension of time would be dealt with under case
management. received on 20-APR-2007
|
||
10
|
2007-03-07
|
Ottawa
|
Solicitor's
certificate of service on behalf of Paul Champ confirming service of 6, 7, 8,
9 upon Respondent by personal service on 07-MAR-2007 filed on 07-MAR-2007
|
||
9
|
2007-03-07
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of Yavar Hameed sworn on 07-MAR-2007 on behalf of Applicant in support of
Notice of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits A-Z, AA-ZZ, AAA-MMM filed on
07-MAR-2007 Document placed in Annexes C D
|
||
8
|
2007-03-07
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of Alex Neve sworn on 27-FEB-2007 on behalf of Applicant in support of Notice
of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits A-H filed on 07-MAR-2007
|
||
7
|
2007-03-07
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of Murray Mollard sworn on 22-FEB-2007 on behalf of Applicant in support of
Notice of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits A-F filed on 07-MAR-2007
|
||
6
|
2007-03-07
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of Michael Byers sworn on 27-FEB-2007 on behalf of Applicant in support of
Notice of Application Doc. No. 1 with Exhibits A filed on 07-MAR-2007
|
||
5
|
2007-02-28
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of service of Karen Candline sworn on 28-FEB-2007 on behalf of Respondent
confirming service of Notice of appearance upon Applicant by telecopier on
28-FEB-2007 filed on 28-FEB-2007
|
||
4
|
2007-02-28
|
Ottawa
|
Notice
of appearance on behalf of Respondent filed on 28-FEB-2007
|
||
3
|
2007-02-28
|
Ottawa
|
Affidavit
of service of J. A. (Sandy) Donaldson sworn on 21-FEB-2007 on behalf of
Applicant confirming service of document no. 1 upon Chief of the Defence
Staff and Minister of National Defence by personal service on 21-FEB-2007
filed on 28-FEB-2007
|
||
2
|
2007-02-22
|
Ottawa
|
Service
copy of Doc. No. 1 with proof of service upon Applicant Respondent on
21-FEB-2007 filed on 22-FEB-2007
|
||
1
|
2007-02-21
|
Ottawa
|
Notice
of application and 2 copies with regard to Judicial Review (s.18) filed on
21-FEB-2007 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Deputy Attorney
General of Canada Tariff fee of $50.00 received: yes
|
||
The last database
update occurred on 2010-04-19 15:19
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.