BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS-(Part IV) the horrific betrayal of Canadian troops whlst at war in Afghanistan- NDP/Green/Bloc - and Civil Liberties BC (who make $$$$millions off our tax dollars) - alleged torture of Afghan Terrorists transfered to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops....Amnesty Int/BCCL/betrayal- A BIG READ if interested /PART IV
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/09/canada-military-news-part-iv-horrific.html
-------------
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS-(Part 3) the horrific betrayal of Canadian troops whlst at war in Afghanistan- NDP/Green/Bloc - and Civil Liberties BC (who make $$$$millions off our tax dollars) - alleged torture of Afghan Terrorists transfered to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops....Amnesty Int/BCCL/betrayal- A BIG READ if interested /PART 3
--------------
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- (Part 2) the horrific betrayal of Canadian troops whlst at war in Afghanistan- NDP/Green/Bloc - and Civil Liberties BC (who make $$$$millions off our tax dollars) - alleged torture of Afghan Terrorists transfered to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops.... A BIG READ if interested (PART 2)
---------------
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- the horrific
betrayal of Canadian troops whlst at war in Afghanistan- NDP/Green/Bloc - and
Civil Liberties BC (who make $$$$millions off our tax dollars) - alleged
torture of Afghan Terrorists transfered to Afghan authorities by Canadian
troops.... A BIG READ if interested /PART 1
----------
PART V
NOTE THAT CROSS EXAMINATION JAN03 2008- I CANNOT GET ACCESS TO.... WTFUDGE... IS UP
WITH THAT...
cross
examination
2
1 COLONEL STEVEN NOONAN, SWORN: 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. CHAMP: 3 MR. CHAMP: Good
afternoon, Colonel Noonan. 4 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 5 MR. CHAMP: Thanks
for making yourself available 6 for us this afternoon. 7 MR. GRAHAM: Counsel,
before we begin I have an 8 amendment to make with respect to the affidavit. If
I 9 could ask you to turn to paragraph 54 on page 14? As of 10 the date of
swearing of the affidavit that statement was 11 true. The Canadian Forces have
since detained persons. 12 They have since determined those persons are not a
13 security threat and they are in the process of being 14 released. That's all
I can say on that issue. 15 BY MR. CHAMP: 16 1. Q. Colonel Noonan, I understand
that you were 17 commander of Task Force Afghanistan for about eight 18 months,
nine months? 19 A. From August '05 to March '06. 20 2. Q. Now you are commander
of CEFCOM? 21 A. No. I am a staff officer, J3, head of the 22 operations branch
for Canadian Expeditionary Force Command 23 or CEFCOM. 24 3. Q. Who is the commander
of CEFCOM? 25 A. The commander is Lieutenant General Gauthier. 3 1 4. Q. Colonel Noonan, we're here today to
talk a 2 little bit about detainees or individuals that the 3 Canadian Forces
have detained in Afghanistan. The first 4 question I would like to ask you,
sir, is about who are 5 the people the Canadian Forces are detaining. It's my 6
understanding from documents that I've seen that it's not 7 simply people who
are engaged in combat but it's other 8 individuals, a wide spectrum of individuals
that the 9 Canadian Forces may detain if for some reason they think 10 there
are other reasons that they might be suspicious. 11 A. The people that we
detain are those people 12 that we consider to be a threat to the local
security at 13 the time. 14 5. Q. That would include some people who are not 15
engaged in combat? 16 A. That's correct. 17 6. Q. Sometimes people will just be
in an area where 18 Canadian Forces feel they shouldn't be or are suspicious 19
if there are any individuals in that area and stop them, 20 question them, and
then just based on the questioning or 21 perhaps a search they think it's
appropriate to detain 22 them? 23 A. They will have either committed an act or
24 indicated an intent or will have been acting suspicious 25 enough that we
would want to ascertain why they're acting
4 1 in such a manner. 2 7. Q. Those would be people that you would
detain? 3 A. They aren't detained at that particular point. 4 They are asked
questions to determine if they are a threat 5 at that particular point to
confirm whether they are or 6 not. 7 8. Q. And searched? 8 A. If it is
considered that the risk is such that 9 it needs to be further mitigated, they
can be searched and 10 restrained if required. 11 9. Q. What are some of the
reasons or grounds that 12 would lead them to be detained after a search? 13 A.
Just to be clear, after a search? 14 10. Q. Following a search what would lead
the 15 individual to be detained? What are some examples? 16 A. Just to clarify
some of the points perhaps in 17 the affidavit in terms of the process, when a
person is in 18 circumstances under which there is suspicion that he or 19 she
may be a threat to the security they are stopped and 20 if after questioning it
is determined that there is 21 grounds on which that suspicion needs to be
further 22 investigated, they will be searched. As I said before, if 23 they
are acting in such a manner that requires it, they 24 will be restrained and
then they will further be handled 25 to determine whether they are considered to
be a continued 5 1 threat. Some of the
indications can be location of where 2 they are. 3 11. Q. Colonel Noonan,
you're aware of complaints to 4 the Military Police Complaints Commission
concerning 5 handling of detainees? 6 A. Yes, I am. 7 12. Q. I'm handing you
and your counsel a document of 8 two witness statements that are documents in
the 9 possession of the Military Police Complaints Commission in 10 connection
with the Attaran complaint. These witness 11 statements were disclosed to
Professor Attaran pursuant to 12 the Access to Information and as I understand
it they are 13 witness statements of the Canadian Forces personnel who 14
captured one of those individuals. 15 Colonel Noonan, I'm just going to ask you
just the 16 format of that document, does the format of that document 17 look
familiar to you? 18 A. Yes. 19 13. Q. It's Annex E to TSO or theatre standing
order, 20 I gather? 21 A. Yes. 22 14. Q. Can you just explain what the purpose
of this 23 form is? 24 A. As part of the detainee process? 25 15. Q. Yes. 6 1 A. It is outlined in the affidavit. There
are a 2 couple of procedures that we -- part of the process of 3 handling
detainees in a manner that we can ascertain the 4 threat or can catalogue what actions
we've taken with the 5 detainee throughout that process. We use this particular
6 form as part of our cataloguing process of activities that 7 have been
conducted. 8 16. Q. It's my understanding the purpose is to 9 catalogue the
reasons or ground for the initial detention. 10 A. It could be and it is also
used as what 11 actions were conducted during that process. 12 17. Q. Have you
ever had an opportunity to see these 13 documents before? 14 A. This particular
one, no. 15 18. Q. Can you just review the documents for a 16 moment? In these
two different witness statements of the 17 same incident it's my understanding
that it's an 18 individual who was in the wrong area. He was stopped as 19 he
appeared to be observing CF activity. He was later 20 captured again and found
to have a cell phone and a 21 mirror. From the details that are in this
document what 22 would your view be why the members in questions detained 23
this individual? 24 MR. GRAHAM: Don't answer that question. It calls 25 for
speculation. *O* 7 1 BY MR. CHAMP: 2 19.
Q. As commander of Task Force Afghanistan you 3 would be providing direction
and control to the soldiers 4 in the field? 5 A. When I was there, yes. 6 20.
Q. They would be looking ultimately to your 7 command and direction with
respect to detention and 8 capture of individuals? 9 A. I was part of that
overall direction that was 10 provided to soldiers on the ground at that time,
yes. 11 21. Q. You would be in discussions with your 12 subordinates about the
reasons why individuals would be 13 detained? 14 A. Yes. 15 22. Q. In fact,
Colonel Noonan, when there's a 16 determination about whether to release or to
transfer 17 someone to Afghan authorities you were the responsible 18 officer
to make that decision? Isn't that so? 19 A. That's correct. 20 23. Q. You would
look at ocuments like this, I 21 understand, to make that kind of
determination? 22 A. That's correct. 23 24. Q. You would review the information
that you had 24 on hand to then come to a conclusion whether the person 25 gave
you personally a reasonable belief that he or she may 8 1 be a person who should be detained
further and 2 transferred? 3 A. That's correct. 4 25. Q. In that capacity what
are some of the things 5 in these documents that would lead you to believe this
6 person should be further detained? 7 MR. GRAHAM: I object. Again this calls
for 8 speculation. This witness has said he hasn't seen the 9 documents before.
He doesn't know the facts of these 10 cases. You're asking him to speculate as
to whether or 11 not a case for release or further detention has been made 12
out. *O* 13 BY MR. CHAMP: 14 26. Q. What are the sort of things that you look
for, 15 Colonel Noonan, to determine whether a case has been made 16 for
detention or release? For someone who hasn't been 17 involved in combat per se,
what are some of the things 18 that you would look for in that role? 19 A. When
I was there? 20 27. Q. Yes. 21 A. I think we need to be clear when I was there
22 we did not detain in the same context that we are 23 detaining right now. We
are part of a transition from 24 Kabul to Kandahar. The circumstances under
which 25 detention would occur under my command were different. 9 1 The process under which we were to
process any potential 2 detainees was different. 3 28. Q. In what way? 4 A. The
threat under which we were operating was 5 not characterised the same. The
chain of command and 6 force structure within which we operated was not the
same. 7 29. Q. But you did sit in that position and did make 8 determinations a
number of times about whether to detain 9 or transfer? 10 A. I didn't make
determinations on detainees 11 except in three cases. 12 30. Q. Colonel Noonan,
I would like to ask you some 13 questions about a few Canadian Forces military
documents. 14 They are documents in your affidavit. They are documents 15 in
the affidavit of Yavar Hameed. The volume I would like 16 to take you to is
Volume II. At Exhibit R there is the 17 Canadian Forces Military Police
Doctrine. Are you 18 familiar with that document? Have you seen it before? 19
A. I have not read that particular document in 20 detail. 21 31. Q. I just want
to take you to a passage here. Go 22 to the table of contents and then it's
about eight pages 23 in. It starts with "Chapter Five, Detention
Operations." 24 Paragraph 2 says the following, 25 "Defeating the
enemy without rounds fired, 10 1
injuries, or single death is the ultimate success a 2 commander can hope to
achieve but this is unlikely. If 3 prisoners of war are treated in accordance
with the Geneva 4 Conventions, they may find their living conditions 5 superior
to those offered by their own units. Coalition 6 forces during the Gulf War of
1990 found enemy soldiers 7 were happy to be captured and to obtain the basic 8
necessities of life after extended periods of poor living 9 conditions. The end
results were favourable to the allies 10 in many ways, fewer casualties on both
sides and the 11 garnering of excellent public opinion. Mistreatment of 12
prisoners of war is militarily unwise, illegal, inhumane, 13 and immoral."
14 Colonel, I just want to ask you a question about 15 the issue of the
military wisdom of handling detainees 16 humanely. It's my understanding from
this that if 17 military units are capturing prisoners and treat them in a 18
humane manner and it becomes known among the enemy that 19 this is going to
happen, it may well reduce the risk 20 militarily of prolonged combat because
people would be 21 more inclined to surrender in those circumstances. Would 22
you agree with that? 23 A. In the context of Afghanistan we use the term 24
prisoners of war to describe the level of treatment that 25 we would like to
accord the detainees, the persons that we
11 1 detain. The people that we detain in Afghanistan are not 2
prisoners of war. 3 32. Q. But there's a reason why, I understand, that 4 we
treat them to the same standard of prisoners of war is 5 because we think that
might be militarily wise in some way 6 among other reasons, that they might be
more inclined to 7 surrender if they know they're going to be treated to the 8
highest standard possible? 9 A. It is certainly my belief that the reason why
10 treatment of them to the same, the detainees in 11 Afghanistan to the same
levels of POWs is that it is one 12 of the recognised international standards
to which we 13 should treat our detainees. 14 33. Q. Would you agree with that
military argument 15 that it is militarily wise to do so? 16 A. As in most
things that are based on tactics, 17 tactics are about principles and there's a
level of 18 agreement and a level of disagreement at any one point 19 that is
in the commander's prerogative of how he wants to 20 prosecute any given
action. 21 34. Q. As a general principle, Colonel, you would 22 agree that
treating detainees to the highest standard is 23 militarily wise because it may
lead them to surrender more 24 easily? 25 MR. GRAHAM: The witness has said that
it's a 12 1 matter of discretion for the
commander depending upon the 2 circumstances. 3 MR. CHAMP: I don't think he
answered my question. 4 That's why I'm asking it again. 5 THE WITNESS: I would
agree that it is one of the 6 factors on which you would base the determination
of the 7 standard that you would provide them. The overriding 8 factor is that
as military commanders, they're still 9 humans and you treat detainees in a
humane fashion as is 10 dictated by international law. 11 BY MR. CHAMP: 12 35.
Q. That's ethical? 13 A. Right. 14 36. Q. That's why this statement says
"Mistreatment 15 of prisoners of war is militarily unwise, illegal, 16
inhumane, and immoral"? There's a difference between 17 morality and
legality obviously. Canadians are proud of 18 our Canadian Forces without
question. We adhere to that 19 highest standard but there are other military
pragmatic 20 reasons why it can be wise as well. That's what I'm 21 suggesting
to you. 22 A. And there are reasons why the optionality 23 needs to be there
because it's about discretion at the 24 tactical level. 25 37. Q. Would you say
that the converse is true, if a 13 1
military force abused or tortured a prisoner, that the 2 enemy on the other
side may fight more fiercely? 3 A. Again it's not a speculation in the legal 4
sense. It depends on the enemy. It's also speculation 5 because Canadian Forces
soldiers wouldn't do that. 6 38. Q. Of course. 7 A. So I'm not understanding
why we're --- 8 39. Q. I'm just asking you as military doctrine and 9 sort of
general principles of warfare, things that you've 10 been trained in I imagine
over the years. 11 A. I suppose we're probably getting into too fine 12 a level
of detail but if we bring it back to the 13 principles of use of minimum force
and proportionality, 14 the optionality that is presented to us in any armed 15
conflict of capture, kill, or be kill is the three 16 outcomes that we have
when we're engaged in armed 17 conflict. Optionality presented to us of killing
or 18 capturing provides us a modicum of possibility of success. 19 We need
that optionality. 20 40. Q. The optionality to --- 21 A. Capture or kill. 22
41. Q. That's not the question I was asking you. I 23 was asking you about
military warfare principles in 24 general and I was suggesting to you that a
military force 25 that mistreats detainees may encounter military problems 14 1 from doing so. 2 MR. GRAHAM: And the witness
has said that the 3 Canadian Forces wouldn't do that so he couldn't speculate 4
on it. 5 MR. CHAMP: That's not the question I was asking 6 him. I was asking
him based on his training whether he 7 can speak to that. 8 THE WITNESS: As a
proponent of someone that 9 agrees that you don't mistreat detainees -- I'm
just 10 trying to answer your question in a fair manner --- 11 MR. CHAMP: I'm
glad to hear that. 12 BY MR. CHAMP: 13 42. Q. Colonel Noonan, let's take it out
of this 14 circumstance. If Taliban or Al-Quaida combatants know 15 that if they
are captured by Canadian Forces they are 16 going to be transferred to those
who will torture them, 17 that may cause those combatants to fight more
fiercely. 18 Would you agree with that proposition? 19 A. I can't speculate on
the Taliban except to 20 tell you how I can characterise what they would do.
They 21 don't capture people. If they do, it's not capture. It's 22 taking
hostage. That is the nature of the enemy that 23 we're combating. To what end
they fight, to what degree 24 they fight, it has -- they will only fight when
they have 25 tactical advantage. To what degree and what factors they 15 1 will assess in their own minds at any
given time would be 2 their subsequent treatment after capture would be one of
3 their factors which I believe answers both your questions. 4 43. Q. I'll take
you now to your affidavit, sir. At 5 paragraph 23 of your affidavit you speak
to the command of 6 Canadian Forces and the control of Canadian Forces. Can 7
you describe the difference you mean between command and 8 control? 9 A.
Operational control allows a superior 10 headquarters to assign tasks to a
subordinate headquarters 11 or to a subordinate unit or formation but it does
not 12 allow them to break up that subordinate force in any 13 discrete parts
to do any discrete taskings. Operational 14 command allows for missions to be
given to any subordinate 15 force and allows the break up of that force to
achieve 16 discrete missions and tasks. 17 44. Q. So if I can paraphrase what
you're saying, 18 operational control means assigning a task and operational 19
command is how you perform the task? 20 A. No. A mission is executed in a
sequence of 21 tasks so operational control allows the assignment of 22 tasks
to certain formations. It doesn't allow them to 23 change the mission.
Operational command, you can change 24 the mission and you can change the force
structure of that 25 subordinate command.
16 1 45. Q. Operational control allows to assign tasks and 2 operational
command determines how the task is carried 3 out? Is that fair? 4 A. I suppose
an example is probably the best way 5 of doing it and an example of
Afghanistan. 6 46. Q. Sure. 7 A. Operational command is retained by national 8
authorities and operational control is given to ISAF which 9 is the formation
through which NATO is exercising the 10 conduct of the tasks in Afghanistan. As
we place our 11 forces under operational control of NATO we have come to 12 an
agreement with NATO that the mission in Afghanistan is 13 congruent with
Canadian aims and that NATO can assign 14 tasks to our forces in Afghanistan in
the attainment of 15 that mission, however, that national command overrides 16
that and therefore the duties that are assigned to the 17 Canadian Forces ISAF
personnel in Afghanistan need to 18 remain consistent with our direction,
Canadian direction, 19 so therefore we always hold the ability to say no to 20
military tasks. 21 47. Q. From that I understand that Canadian Forces 22 aren't
bound by ISAF policy. In other words, Canadian 23 command could override ISAF
policy? 24 A. Once we've entered into an agreement with ISAF 25 policy we are
bound by that policy. In the execution of
17 1 mission, we'll act within that policy. 2 48. Q. I take it we would
have the right to give 3 notice to ISAF that we're not following a particular 4
policy any more? 5 A. Yes, and then there would be a requirement to 6 gain a
convergence again so that operating within the 7 coalition, both parties, both
national interests and NATO 8 interests converge again, so it's in agreement
again. 9 49. Q. With respect to the 96-hour detention policy 10 of ISAF you
would agree with me that it is possible for 11 Canadian Forces to hold beyond
96 hours? There are 12 circumstances when we've done that? 13 A. Could I just
refresh myself where I said it's 14 96 hours? 15 50. Q. It's in paragraph 41.
At anytime, Colonel, 16 take your time. If you want to stop and review things,
17 that's perfectly fine. 18 A. The ISAF policy is one that is, just to give 19
the framework within which is operates, the 96 hours is 20 one that nations
have agreed to as being a reasonable 21 amount of time for us to be able to
determine whether to 22 release or to transfer. 23 51. Q. But it is possible in
certain circumstances 24 for us to hold longer than 96 hours? 25 A. Yes, if the
case is made that there is a 18 1
requirement to do so. 2 52. Q. That determination would be made by the 3
commander of Task Force Afghanistan? 4 A. In concert with commander ISAF. 5 53.
Q. You would advise ISAF but would not take 6 orders from ISAF on that issue,
would he? 7 A. He would certainly take into account ISAF's 8 point of view.
Just from historical purposes we have had 9 detainees that were detained beyond
the 96-hour time frame 10 but for medical reasons. One of the main determinants
of 11 when we hand over detainees to Afghan authorities is that 12 they are in
good enough physical condition that this 13 transfer can be effected. 14 54. Q.
Do we have any reporting obligation to ISAF in 15 those circumstances? 16 A. We
do do that reporting to ISAF through 17 regional command south and to national
authorities in 18 CEFCOM. I don't know if we have an obligation. It is 19
practised though that we do inform them that we are 20 keeping beyond 96 for
the following reasons, et cetera. 21 55. Q. If I take you to Exhibit G of your
affidavit, 22 you call these detainee handling deck cards or something. 23
They're --- 24 A. The slide deck. 25 56. Q. If you go to page 583, the top
right corner, 19 1 at the top there's a
flow chart Detainee Handling Detainee 2 Procedural Framework and I note that it
flows down and in 3 the middle if you decide to detain ANSF, Afghan National 4
Security Force, is present on the object of a TFA. If 5 it's yes, there's a few
things you do. If it's no, then 6 TFA, Task Force Afghanistan, notifies CEFCOM?
7 A. Yes. 8 57. Q. Then I note in the lower right-hand corner 9 that when it
comes time for us to transfer an individual 10 to Afghan government custody
following detention the 11 Government of Canada notifies the ICRC. I didn't see
12 anything in there that says that we notify ISAF. 13 A. It's not explicit
there. It's certainly 14 practised though. 15 58. Q. Incidently while we're on
it I also note that 16 if you go to the middle box where it's "detain"
on its own 17 and then the next box says "Our Afghan National Security 18
Force is present on the objective with TFA." That's if 19 they're in the
field with them, I gather? 20 A. Yes. 21 59. Q. If that's a yes then it goes to
the next box 22 where it says "Is the Afghan Security Force capable or 23
willing to take immediate possession of individual in 24 question?" That
would be like a battlefield transfer? 25 A. That's one of the examples,
yes. 20 1 60. Q. If it's yes then
arrange his immediate 2 transfer. In those circumstances ICRC is not notified
is 3 my understanding. 4 A. No, they are. If we have detained them and we 5
have handed them over to ANSF, ICRC is informed of that 6 because it is a
transfer of our detention to them. 7 61. Q. The way I was reading it is that if
it's in 8 the field and it's so quickly after the battle there is no 9
notification of the ICRC just because I don't see any 10 arrow there to where
we notify ICRC. It's only if the 11 ANSF is not willing to detain them in the
field we then 12 take them out and that's when we go through our more 13 formal
detainee processing chain. 14 A. No. If we have detained them as Canadian 15
Forces detainees and we hand them over to the ANSF, even 16 on the battlefield,
we will complete the administrative 17 process through what is called the Annex
F which is the 18 Notice of Transfer and ICRC will be informed . 19 62. Q.
Colonel Noonan, I read your affidavit. Would 20 you agree with me that the
capacity for humane treatment 21 and detention of prisoners is a necessary
corollary of 22 combat operations? 23 A. I don't understand the question. 24
63. Q. That being able to provide humane treatment to 25 detainees is necessary
if you're going to engage in combat 21 1
operations? 2 A. It's whatever has been agreed to as to the 3 process. We would
have the necessary facilities to do 4 that. 5 64. Q. What I'm suggesting to you
is it's a necessary 6 part of the mission. For example if you're going to send
7 off a unit of 100 soldiers, you've got to have someone 8 there who can cook
and by the same token if 100 soldiers 9 are going out on a combat operation
where it's expected 10 they may capture and detain an individual, it should be
11 expected that we have the capacity to hold that individual 12 in a humane manner?
13 A. To process that individual. We have to have 14 the capacity to process
that individual in whatever manner 15 that that theatre of operations is
mandated to do. 16 65. Q. So you have to have some provision for long- 17 term
detention? 18 A. No. We have to have provision for the 19 processing of
detainees in whatever theatre that we go to. 20 In Afghanistan the provision
was that we would transfer 21 our detainees to Afghan authorities within 96
hours or as 22 soon as practical. 23 66. Q. Let me put it another way. Let's
say that the 24 Afghan authorities and the American authorities refused to 25
take any detainees from Canadian soldiers for whatever 22 1 reason. Then we would no longer be able
to engage in 2 combat operations, I take it? 3 MR. GRAHAM: This is a matter of
speculation. *O* 4 THE WITNESS: That's the speculation part. It 5 would have an
impact. 6 BY MR. CHAMP: 7 67. Q. It's important? Well, sir, let's go to your 8
affidavit then. Paragraph 29 of your affidavit says the 9 following, "Detention
is integral to the broad spectrum of 10 CF operations including combat. Not
having the option to 11 capture the enemy is not an acceptable or appropriate
12 military solution." 13 A. That's correct. 14 68. Q. You swore to that
and that's true? 15 A. Yes. 16 69. Q. In other words, if we do not have the
option 17 of capturing the enemy, we cannot engage in combat 18 operations,
correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 70. Q. So if we do not have the capacity to
hold 21 someone then we cannot engage in military operations? 22 A. It doesn't
necessarily follow. 23 71. Q. What would we do with them? 24 A. Again it's
speculation because in the theatre 25 of operations that we have agreed to
conduct operations in 23 1 there is the
ability to detain and a process by which we 2 transfer these detainees to the
Afghan government so we 3 have set up the necessary facilities that is required
to 4 do that and assigned appropriate resources. 5 72. Q. We've been in
Afghanistan now for over five 6 years, Colonel? 7 A. Off and on. We had an
initial commitment 8 under Operation Apollo. That stopped. That was 2002 and 9
then we re-engaged in Afghanistan in 2003 under Operation 10 Athena. 11 MR.
GRAHAM: There was a break of about three 12 months or so. 13 THE WITNESS: I
can't remember the exact dates but 14 there was a break. 15 BY MR. CHAMP: 16
73. Q. Since January 2002 Canadian soldiers have been 17 in Afghanistan almost
the entire time with the exception 18 of a few months? 19 A. With that
exception. 20 74. Q. Throughout that time have we considered 21 developing the
capacity to hold detainees ourselves? 22 A. We have not had to, no, because of
the 23 arrangements that have been made. 24 75. Q. We've never considered the
option? 25 A. We've never had to consider the option. 24 1 76. Q. We've never discussed it? 2 A. I
wouldn't be able to say that. 3 77. Q. We do have plans for building long-term
4 detention facilities, do we not, Colonel? 5 A. A plan? 6 78. Q. In Prisoner
of War and Detainee Doctrine, the 7 Canadian Forces, we have plans for building
and staffing 8 and managing a prisoner of war or detainee holding 9 facility?
10 A. It's not a plan. It's an approach to 11 establishing a prisoner of war
camp. 12 79. Q. It's plans if we wanted to establish one, 13 correct? 14 A. I
suppose it can be characterised as a plan to 15 establish a prisoner of war
camp. 16 MR. GRAHAM: Are you referring to a document in 17 particular? 18 MR.
CHAMP: Yes. If you go to Volume II of the 19 affidavit of Yavar Hameed and you
go to Exhibit Q, it's 20 the --- 21 MR. GRAHAM: I'm looking at a document
entitled 22 Prisoner of War Handling Detainees and Interrogation and 23
Tactical Questioning. 24 MR. CHAMP: In International Operations, Joint 25
Doctrine Manual. 25 1 MR. GRAHAM: Yes. 2
BY MR. CHAMP: 3 80. Q. So you're familiar with that document, sir? 4 A. Not in
detail but I'm familiar with it. 5 81. Q. If you go to page 3E6, it starts with
a 6 chapter about the prisoners of war camp, all the 7 construction
requirements set out in this annex for the PW 8 holding area and the layout of
the compounds enclosures of 9 which it is made up also apply to the
establishment of a 10 PW camp. The essential difference between the holding 11
area and the camp is the permanence of the camp whereas 12 the holding area is
at best a semi-permanent facility. 13 The camp is a long-term facility implying
the provision of 14 hutted accommodation, paved road, and paths and generally
15 solid construction methods for perimeter, fences, guard 16 towers,
administrative offices. 17 From that passage, Colonel Noonan, you would agree
18 with me that the Canadian Forces do have plans for 19 establishing long-term
detention facilities if necessary? 20 A. For prisoners of war. Although we
treat our 21 detainees humanely or in terms of humanity, to the 22 conditions
of prisoners of war, they're not prisoners of 23 war. 24 82. Q. Treatment to
the standard of prisoners of war 25 except for living accommodations? 26 1 A. No, that's not what I was saying.
There's no 2 legal basis on which we take these detainees as prisoners 3 of
war. The concept of prisoners of war is take 4 combatants out until such time
as the conflict is ceased 5 and it is part of an international armed conflict.
6 Detainees, we have been given permission by a recognised 7 government to
establish a security situation to assist 8 them establishing a security
situation that will allow 9 reconstruction and development, and in conjunction
with 10 that government and in conjunction with our partners have 11 entered
into an agreement of how we are going to handle 12 the capture of threat. 13
83. Q. You're speaking about Afghanistan? 14 A. Yes. 15 84. Q. What I draw from
your answer relative to my 16 question is what you are saying is that Canada
cannot 17 establish a prisoner of war camp in Afghanistan because we 18 have a
different relationship with the Afghanistan 19 government than if it were an
international conflict? 20 It's not an international conflict therefore we
can't 21 create a prisoner of war camp? Is that what you're 22 saying? 23 A.
No. The nature of the conflict is such that 24 although we apply some
principles of the prisoners of war 25 to the treatment levels of detainees,
that they're not 27 1 prisoners of war.
The plan that you're alluding to here 2 is a bricks and mortar plan and doesn't
provide any 3 context as to why that facility would be established, to 4 what
level of security that that facility would have to be 5 manned and under what
mandate that it would be 6 established. 7 85. Q. Colonel Noonan, you may want
some time to 8 review this document because some of the things you're 9 saying
aren't consistent with what the document is saying. 10 First of all it's not
necessarily a bricks and mortar. 11 There's a few different camps here. They
have ones for 12 small if you want to hold I believe it's 20 men is the 13
first one. The next one is 200. The next one is 500 and 14 the next one 2,000.
They also have in there staffing, the 15 staffing ratios that were required for
the different sized 16 of camps. Are you telling me, Colonel, that you didn't
17 have an opportunity to review this when you testified that 18 Canada did not
have the capacity to build a detainee 19 facility in Afghanistan? 20 A. No. I'm
aware of most of the contents of 21 this. These are plans that if we went into
a conflict 22 where prisoners of war were taken, these are the types of 23
things that we could do. It was a doctrinal basis on 24 which we would
prosecute prisoners of war in an armed 25 conflict. It identifies the resource
requirement that 28 1 could be used in a
prisoner of war. 2 86. Q. If we had to in an international conflict? 3 A. If we
had to hold prisoners of war, yes. 4 87. Q. It's my understanding that soldiers
and 5 military police do get training in how to establish these 6 facilities.
That's true? 7 A. They do get training to some degree in that. 8 I'm not the
expert on to what level they get that 9 training. 10 88. Q. Colonel, it's
likely that Canadian Forces will 11 detain individuals in Afghanistan in the
future? 12 A. Under the current mission set, yes. 13 89. Q. In the next six
months how many detainees do 14 you think we might capture in a ball park? 15
A. That's speculative. I don't have that number. 16 90. Q. There's not
operational plan or consideration 17 of that issue of how many it might be? 18
A. No. 19 91. Q. Paragraph 52 of your affidavit you state that 20 "Due to
operational security I cannot release the numbers 21 of detainees, however, I
can confirm they are higher than 22 that alleged in the applicants'
affidavits." 23 A. Right, which is in the past. 24 92. Q. I think we
suggested that it was at least 40 25 up to April '07 and there's probably more
since then and 29 1 you're saying it's
more than 40? Is that right? 2 A. I'm trying to be helpful here. The numbers of
3 detainees since we've been in Afghanistan is more than 40. 4 93. Q. Is it
less than 200? 5 MR. GRAHAM: I object to the question. *O* 6 MR. CHAMP: He's
already given an estimate, Mr. 7 Graham. I'm not asking for a specific number.
8 MR. GRAHAM: I object. 9 BY MR. CHAMP: 10 94. Q. Is it more than 1,000? 11 MR.
GRAHAM: He's given his evidence. He can 12 confirm they're higher than that
alleged in your 13 affidavits. 14 MR. CHAMP: You can't put in a little bit and
then 15 claim privilege or national security. 16 MR. GRAHAM: I am claiming
privilege. I am 17 claiming national security with respect to those figures.
*O* 18 BY MR. CHAMP: 19 95. Q. Colonel Noonan, your position at CEFCOM, you 20
would get or see reports when people are detained? 21 A. I will see reports of
people that are detained 22 if I ask for them or if they are flagged to me. 23
96. Q. Colonel Noonan, there's no requirement or 24 restriction in our
agreements with Afghanistan that limits 25 how long we can detain Afghanistan
citizens? Is that 30 1 true? 2 A. I'm
sorry. I didn't understand. 3 97. Q. There's nothing in any of the agreements
that 4 Canada has with Afghanistan that limits the duration of 5 time that we
hold Afghan citizens? 6 A. The limitation that I'm aware of is the 96- 7 hour
ISAF construct. 8 98. Q. I just want to ask you a bit about what you 9 might
know about detention by Afghan authorities. In 10 paragraph 53 of your
affidavit you say that "From March 11 2006 to the date of swearing this
affidavit Canadian 12 Forces transferred increasingly to the NDS," the
National 13 Directorate of Security, "as a result of increased 14
confidence in the professionalism of that organisation." 15 It's my
understanding that the majority of our 16 detainees are now transferred to the
NDS? 17 A. That has been the tendency, yes. 18 99. Q. How were the other
branches of the Afghan 19 National Security Forces regarded as less
professional 20 than NDS? 21 A. Only on a case-by-case basis. You'll see in 22
the other parts of the affidavit where there's a couple of 23 examples where
some of the other ANS forces have shown 24 instances where we weren't as
comfortable and so over a 25 period of time and by the conduct of, and this is
again 31 1 I've been informed by other
members of the Canadian 2 Forces, that over a period of time based on their 3
impression of the conduct of the NDS personnel that they 4 interact with
they've grown comfortable that the NDS had 5 the professionalism required to
receive our transferred 6 detainees. 7 100. Q. Meaning there would be fewer
instances with 8 the NDS? 9 A. No. That would suppose that we knew that 10
anything was happening. Fewer, more, less, more chance 11 of, less likelihood
of, just that we were comfortable that 12 this was an organisation that we were
comfortable with. 13 101. Q. You had indicated that some other forces had 14
shown instances where you were not as comfortable but I 15 gather then the NDS
had fewer of such instances? 16 A. No. Good point. The AMP, in one instance the
17 local AMP demonstrated that they weren't -- this 18 particular element of
the local AMP were not to be 19 trusted, that we would get a level of comfort
that the 20 prisoners would not be, the detainees would not be abused 21 and
therefore we took it back from that particular local 22 AMP. As a matter of
efficiency, as a matter of common 23 sense we developed a linkage with the NDS.
24 102. Q. This incident with the AMP, is this the 25 incident that you've
described in paragraph 56 of your 32 1
affidavit? 2 A. That's correct. 3 103. Q. When did that incident occur? 4 MR.
GRAHAM: We object to that question. *O* 5 MR. CHAMP: On what basis? 6 MR.
GRAHAM: On the basis of national security. 7 MR. CHAMP: It threatens Canada's
national 8 security to know when the Canadian Forces observed local 9 Afghan
National Police beating a detainee that they 10 transferred to that unit? 11
MR. GRAHAM: We object to any questions on this 12 incident generally. *O* 13
MR. CHAMP: But you can swear an affidavit over it 14 but I can't ask any questions?
Is that your position, 15 Counsel? 16 MR. GRAHAM: It is. 17 MR. CHAMP: I cannot
ask any questions about this? 18 You can swear an affidavit to it but I cannot
ask any 19 questions? 20 MR. GRAHAM: You have asked in number six for 21
documents and reports concerning that incident. You're 22 now asking for
documents and reports concerning that 23 example and my position is that we
object. 24 BY MR. CHAMP: 25 104. Q. Colonel Noonan, you learned of this
incident 33 1 from reports I gather? 2
A. I did, yes. 3 105. Q. That's the basis of your information and 4 belief? 5
A. That's correct. 6 106. Q. Did you ever talk to any of the individual 7
Canadian Forces soldiers involved in that incident? 8 A. No, I did not. 9 107.
Q. What was the medical condition of the 10 individual? 11 MR. GRAHAM: Object.
*O* 12 MR. CHAMP: On what basis? 13 MR. GRAHAM: Same basis. Security. 14 MR.
CHAMP: National security? 15 MR. GRAHAM: You're trying to get indirectly, 16
Counsel, what you can't get directly. 17 MR. CHAMP: I'm just trying to
appreciate what 18 aspect of this, I guess, that if we knew the date that 19
would be some indication of when a particular combat 20 operation occurred,
when we captured someone or something 21 but right now I'm just asking what the
medical condition 22 of the individual. 23 MR. GRAHAM: I'm not prepared to
allow any 24 questions concerning paragraphs 55 and 56 other than the 25
information that's there. 34 1 BY MR.
CHAMP: 2 108. Q. Colonel Noonan, there is a medical examination 3 of all detainees
before they are transferred, that's my 4 understanding? 5 A. That is the
current practice, yes. 6 109. Q. Would there have been a medical examination of
7 this detainee before he was transferred? 8 A. I don't know. 9 110. Q. Were
there any charges against the ANP police 10 involved in this matter? 11 A. I
don't know. 12 111. Q. In paragraph 55 you describe another incident. 13 Is
that the incident that was reported by CTV television 14 or is that a different
incident? 15 A. I'm not sure. 16 112. Q. Are there other incidents aside from
these two 17 that you're aware of? 18 A. Incidents of? 19 113. Q. Well, similar
incidents where Canadian 20 soldiers exercised their discretion to either not
transfer 21 or to take back a detainee because of concerns that the 22
detainees were at risk? 23 A. Those are the two that I am aware of. 24 114. Q.
At paragraph 58 you speak about "two detainees 25 were transferred to the
NDS and then we asked that they be 35 1
returned to us for further questioning." Was that for the 2 purposes of
some kind of charges or something against 3 those individuals? 4 A. It was for
the purposes of gaining further 5 intelligence. 6 115. Q. In paragraphs 62 and
63 of your affidavit you 7 indicate that "Canadian Forces were not aware
of any 8 specific complaints regarding treatment of detainees 9 transferred to
Afghan authorities by Canada." Are you 10 aware of any general complaints?
11 MR. GRAHAM: What do you mean by a "general 12 complaint"? 13 BY
MR. CHAMP: 14 116. Q. Did individuals from either other armed forces 15 or from
organizations, international NGOs, or the Afghan 16 Independant Human Rights
Commission ever say to the 17 Canadian Forces that Canadian detainees are being
abused 18 or tortured? 19 A. There was -- in my understanding there was no 20
specific allegations or complaints raised by any of those 21 organizations to
Canadian Forces. 22 117. Q. I'm not speaking about specific individuals. 23
Just like someone saying "That's going on" because when I 24 read
"specific complaints" it sounds to me like you're 25 trying to limit
it. 36 1 A. No. There was no attempt to
try and limit it. 2 As part of the overall look at Afghanistan what -- I might
3 be outside of my lanes here so -- we didn't receive 4 specific complaints and
access to some of the reports, I'm 5 not sure which ones, were never specific
in their 6 allegations. We didn't have -- we've never had a 7 complaint that
had the specificity that allowed us to 8 investigate any further. 9 118. Q. Are
you aware if Canadian detainees are being 10 segregated in some way in Afghan
detention facilities? 11 A. I'm not aware. 12 119. Q. In paragraph 69 you refer
to a meeting between 13 Brigadier General Tim Grant and the Afghan National 14
Directorate of Security in Kandahar, and General Grant's 15 role there was
"to facilitate access by the Commission to 16 NDS facilities"? 17 A.
That was one of his aims, yes, in that initial 18 discussion on the 25th. 19
120. Q. General Grant was successful in that, I 20 understand? 21 A. Because
the following day, the 26th, he 22 facilitated the meeting between the director
of the local 23 NDS and the AIHRC individual. 24 121. Q. In his role there did
General Grant find out 25 how long the Commission had not had access to the NDS 37 1 facilities? 2 A. I don't know. 3 122. Q.
Colonel Noonan, do you know if Canadian 4 detainees are in a number of
different detention 5 facilities across Afghanistan? 6 A. I don't know. 7 123.
Q. We don't know? 8 A. I don't know. 9 124. Q. Colonel Noonan, you are aware
that there is an 10 investigation by the National Investigation Service into 11
allegations of certain detainees being abused? 12 A. I'm aware of one request
by my commander to 13 have an allegation or a potential allegation of potential
14 Canadian Forces member -- inappropriate behaviour by a 15 Canadian Forces
member. 16 125. Q. I don't need to ask you -- I'm talking about 17 actually the
investigation that came out of the Military 18 Police Complaints Commission
complaint and the issue I 19 want to ask you about is the efforts by the
National 20 Investigation Service to locate those three detainees to 21 ask
them questions. It's my understanding that the NIS 22 have not been able to
locate those detainees? 23 A. I don't know. 24 126. Q. You have no information
about that? 25 A. No. 38 1 127. Q. You
don't know if they've located the 2 individuals? 3 A. I don't. 4 128. Q. You're
aware that the NIS is looking for them? 5 A. No, I was not. 6 129. Q. I'd like
to show Colonel Noonan the 7 Supplementary Affidavit of Alex Neve. It's in the
Motion 8 Record, if that's what you're -- Motion Record, Volume I. 9 MR.
GRAHAM: Here it is. 10 MR. CHAMP: Exhibit A. 11 MR. GRAHAM: Exhibit A. 12 BY
MR. CHAMP: 13 130. Q. It's a newspaper article, "Canada Loses Track 14 of
Afghan Detainees. Do you want to just take a look at 15 it for a couple of
minutes and tell me if you have any 16 knowledge about the matter? 17 MR.
GRAHAM: Counsel, I've already objected to 18 questions going to allegations of
abuse by the forces. 19 You're not asking about that? 20 MR. CHAMP: I'm not
asking about that. Absolutely 21 not. Sorry about that, Colonel. Just so you're
clear, 22 I'm asking questions about the issue that these three men 23 have
vanished in Afghan custody and unable to be located. 24 MR. GRAHAM: I think the
witness has already told 25 you he has no idea whether these people have been
located. 39 1 MR. CHAMP: I was trying to
refresh his memory 2 once he took at that. I thought that might help him. 3 BY
MR. CHAMP: 4 131. Q. You have no information about that at all? 5 A. Not that
I'm aware of, no. 6 132. Q. That doesn't cause you any concern with 7 respect
to the transfer of detainees to Afghan 8 authorities? 9 A. I don't -- I don't
take military actions based 10 on media articles although unless it makes sense
to do so. 11 133. Q. But the National Investigation Service are 12 saying that
they can't find these men. 13 MR. GRAHAM: Well, Counsel, you're giving evidence
14 now. This witness has said he doesn't know that and I 15 suggest to you your
question calls for speculation as to 16 what he might do based upon a state of
knowledge he 17 doesn't have. *O* 18 BY MR. CHAMP: 19 134. Q. So you're saying
to me, sir, that in CEFCOM no 20 one is aware of any of that information? 21 A.
No. 22 135. Q. No one's heard of that? No one's aware of any 23 vanished
detainees? 24 A. No. I'm not saying that. 25 136. Q. It hasn't come up? 40 1 A. No. I am not saying that. 2 137. Q.
What are you saying then? 3 A. What I'm saying is I'm not -- in my affidavit 4
I'm trying to give you an idea of what I know. I don't 5 know the circumstances
surrounding that except that 6 someone is investigating it as you've just told
me, so 7 that's why we have an investigating service to do that for 8 us. 9
138. Q. No issues have been raised about the 10 preliminary findings of that
investigation with CEFCOM? 11 A. Not that I have had to take for action. I'm 12
just not in the loop in that particular regard. 13 MR. CHAMP: I think I'm done,
Counsel. I'm just 14 going to take a break for two minutes or maybe five 15
minutes. Is that okay? 16 MR. GRAHAM: Sure. 17 MR. CHAMP: I should be done. 18
(SHORT RECESS) 19 THE WITNESS: In my eagerness to provide you an 20 answer, the
article that has been presented --- 21 MR. GRAHAM: This is Exhibit A to the 22
Supplementary Affidavit of Alex Neve. 23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Right. After having
taken a 24 look at the headline, I had thought it was talking about 25
Canadians losing track of Afghan detainees in the process 41 1 of it. 2 MR. CHAMP: Sorry about that. 3
THE WITNESS: Okay, so it's my -- well, my fault. 4 I didn't read the entire
thing. I am aware of the 5 incident in question on the 8th of April that's
alluded to 6 in the media. I am not aware of the NDS -- sorry the NIS 7
investigations that are surrounding that, so if that 8 alters your line of
questioning, I am aware of that. 9 MR. CHAMP: No. That's more what I was
focusing 10 on. 11 THE WITNESS: Yes 12 MR. CHAMP: That other issue has nothing
to do 13 with us as far as I'm concerned. 14 THE WITNESS: Right. 15 MR. CHAMP:
What it is about here is the concern 16 is that if they're transferred to the
Afghan authorities 17 and then we go asking from the Afghan authorities just 18
tell us, we have no idea where they are any more, can't 19 say if they were
released or not or whatever, that that 20 would be an issue of concern to us.
21 THE WITNESS: So that's the clarification on that 22 one. 23 BY MR. CHAMP: 24
139. Q. You would agree that is an issue of concern 25 that if someone goes
missing and they can't say what 42 1
happened to them one way or the other, that would be an 2 issue of concern to
us? 3 A. I suppose it is. I suppose it is. 4 140. Q. I don't think it's a
difficult proposition. 5 A. Right, yes. It's something that we're looking 6 at,
I guess. 7 141. Q. I was just looking for the portion of your 8 affidavit --
okay. Can I take you to paragraph 37 of your 9 affidavit? Paragraph 37 you say,
"The Canadian Forces do 10 not presently have the capacity or capability
to establish 11 and manage a long-term detention facility in a deployed 12
theatre of operations." 13 Are you prepared to clarify that statement in
14 light of the doctrine now that I showed you with the 15 plans? 16 A. Sure,
yes. The doctrine gives us a feel for 17 the prisoner of -- sorry -- a plan if
we had to do a 18 prisoner of war holding area, what it would look like. 19
That doesn't mean that we actually have that capacity in 20 terms of people or
capability in terms of skill set and in 21 fact we don't. 22 142. Q. But you
had indicated to me that people do get 23 training to do that? 24 A. They are
ade aware of it and they -- even in 25 my training we have seen them -- they
are made aware of
43 1 it. They practice it sometimes but very
to small degrees, 2 trying to maintain some kind of understanding of what it 3
would take. 4 143. Q. Do you know how long it would take to build 5 one of
those kinds of facilities? 6 A. The facilities, I'm not sure. Again I didn't 7
want to talk about bricks and mortar. It's about the 8 building of the
capability and capacity for us to do it. 9 Historically, in terms of building
capacity and capability 10 within a Canadian Forces, it's measured in months
and 11 years to go from zero to -- or even the residual doctrinal 12 basis on
which we have prisoner of war camps to actual 13 deployment of that capacity.
14 144. Q. When you say "historically", what historical 15 experience
are you speaking of there? 16 A. One of my previous jobs was in the force 17
development world within the army and as we looked at 18 trying to develop new
capabilities or ensure that we don't 19 have certain capabilities go to a point
where they are no 20 longer useful. So if we identified a capability gap which
21 is always the case in any kind of organization and if you 22 needed to close
that gap, that's measured in terms of -- 23 once you've identified that gap and
then go towards 24 closing that gap, it's been my experience that it's been 25
months and years before you can actually get to that 44 1 capability. 2 145. Q. When you say
"new capability" that's just in 3 general, not with respect to
detention facilities 4 specifically? 5 A. Right. That's right. That's a general
6 comment. 7 146. Q. So as a general comment the development of new 8
capability to do anything can often take years? 9 A. Yes. 10 147. Q. That would
be starting from zero to 11 developing, you know, early interim policies,
interim 12 doctrines to --- 13 A. How to integrate it in wherever you want to
14 put it to, the skill sets that are associated with the 15 human resources,
the dollars that are allocated for that 16 kind of activity. 17 148. Q. I
accept your statement on that but that 18 doesn't necessarily apply to
long-term detention 19 facilities. If I look at -- let's go back to the 20
document. It's in Hameed's affidavit, Volume II, Exhibit 21 Q. 22 A. What page?
23 149. Q. Start at page 3E6. You've gone past it. It's 24 at the bottom, 3E.
25 A. I've got a 3E3.
45 1 150. Q. You might have 3E13 --- 2 A. I
see. Got it. 3 151. Q. The military pagination has kind of got me 4 nuts as
well. Colonel Noonan is smirking at both counsel. 5 So if I could take you to
3E1-1, just the next page over? 6 So if you just look on the left side there,
example of a 7 layout of a basic collecting point. You're an engineer, 8 right,
sir? 9 A. I am, yes. 10 152. Q. How long do you think it would take to build a
11 facility like that? 12 A. To build this in terms of bricks and mortar? 13
153. Q. Well, in terms of what they're saying. Like 14 if I read it, there's a fence,
barbed wire, post metal 15 fence, driver, picket, gloves, wiring, tape cut
reel, 16 barbed wire --- 17 MR. GRAHAM: Counsel, do you mean actual 18
construction or --- 19 BY MR. CHAMP: 20 154. Q. Yes. Yes. Construction. The
trench, so 21 forth, latrine, the cat wire fence. 22 A. Right. No, understood.
I'm going to frame my 23 answer in the fact that it's irrelevant but it would
not 24 take long. 25 155. Q. Why do you say it's irrelevant?
46 1 A. Because the permission to build that,
the 2 skill set to man it, the underpinning legal authority to 3 do so would
take much longer than it would take to 4 actually construct it. 5 156. Q. What
is the skill set to do so? What's 6 required there? 7 A. The skill set is one
not just of security but 8 understanding the rules under which you are manning
that 9 holding facility, understanding the rules of engagement 10 that you
would be operating under, in other words when, 11 if, how, to apply force, the
ability to -- so that's the 12 people themselves that are actually doing that
holding and 13 then putting within a command of control structure that 14
people need to understand again under which they can order 15 the application
of force, under hich they are being asked 16 to detain long-term, under what
provisions they would do 17 so. 18 157. Q. Colonel Noonan, there is a temporary
detention 19 facility operated by Canadian Forces at Kandahar air 20 field? 21
A. No. That's a transfer facility. 22 158. Q. It's a facility that's used to
detain and hold 23 detainees for up to three days? There's four tents, 24
they're guarded --- 25 A. It's a facility where we hold the detainees 47 1 prior to transfer, yes. 2 159. Q. Up to
three days? 3 A. The 96 hours so that's what? Three days or 4 four days? 5 160.
Q. Four days. Pardon me. Four days. 6 A. Yes. 7 161. Q. It's a temporary
detention facility? 8 A. No. It's a transfer facility. 9 162. Q. So the
individuals who are there, they're 10 guarded, I gather? 11 A. Yes, they are.
12 163. Q. Those guards would be training about when and 13 if to apply force
to those individuals? 14 A. That's correct, yes. 15 164. Q. There would be a
command and control structure 16 that deals with the orders to those
individuals, the 17 guards of when and if to apply force? 18 A. In its present
construct, that's correct, yes. 19 165. Q. How is that different from a
long-term 20 facility, sir? 21 A. We would have to go through that process to
22 determine that difference in exact detail. 23 166. Q. That would take years
to do that? 24 A. Not the determination of the difference. 25 167. Q.
Weeks? 48 1 A. I'm not sure how long it
would take to do the 2 determination of the difference but it would not be the
3 critical path to the solution set if we have to go down 4 there. The critical
path would be gaining international 5 concurrence to operate in this manner. 6
168. Q. Taking away the legal authority, I'm just 7 talking about the
operational capability for the moment. 8 A. And again, once we've identified
gaps, 9 providing solution sets that go to closing those gaps from 10 the
operational capability would be training of personnel, 11 supplemental training
--- 12 169. Q. How would it be different than the training 13 those individuals
already have? They're guarding them. 14 They have to determine when and if to
apply force. How 15 would the training be different? 16 A. They need to -- when
and if to apply force, we 17 would either have to determine whether we would
take those 18 personnel that -- because of the likelihood of increased 19
inhabitants of this and the time frame involved with it, 20 we'd have to
determine where we would get these people 21 from, whether it would be
in-theatre which takes away from 22 the job that they're currently doing or
whether we would 23 have to build new capacity which -- sorry, yes, a new 24
capacity within which to generate these people, the 25 funding that's
associated with it, the training that's
49 1 associated with it, the equipping that's associated with 2 it. 3
170. Q. What do you mean by "equipping"? 4 A. More people, more guns,
more whatever types of 5 materials that are required, personnel. 6 171. Q. I
understand that there is the concern about 7 redirecting personnel from other
activities to manning a 8 detention facility for a longer period or with larger
9 numbers would be a concern. Is that the main concern? 10 A. That's one of the
concerns. The other concern 11 that we do have is that without the proper
training, 12 without experience in it, the execution of that may go 13 wrong as
has been evidenced in my understanding of -- of 14 for example the Abu Ghraib
situation. 15 Our folks have not been exposed to, historically, 16 nor have
been for at least my generation to the holding of 17 detainees or prisoners of
war, either one, in our 18 generation. We don't know the risk -- the lack of 19
knowledge that we have in the actual conduct of it is 20 significant. 21 172.
Q. Because the Afghanistan mission is the first 22 true combat mission for the
Canadian military since the 23 Korean world war? 24 A. That we've got to this
level? Yes. 25 173. Q. I gather that the Canadian Forces have been 50 1 developing a lot of new capacities and
skills over the 2 last two years in the course of their deployment? 3 A. We
have been integrating some capabilities 4 that we have not deployed recently.
But in terms of 5 brand-new skills? No. We've got infantry. We've got 6 armour.
We've got competent engineers. Our ability to 7 deploy them better trained from
lessons learned is there. 8 Our ability to integrate a new weapons system such
as -- 9 not a new weapons system but the tank, we've been able to 10 do that
but it's not an old -- it's not a new capability 11 that we've integrated into
that force. 12 174. Q. Colonel, on page 3E2-1, I think it's just a 13 page
over. There you go. That's a map or a layout of a 14 entral collecting point
for 200 prisoners of war? 15 A. Yes. 16 175. Q. How long do you think it would
take to build a 17 facility like that? 18 A. A collecting point is after the
conduct of an 19 operation, those that were detained or taken prisoner of 20
war are collected there with the intent to move them on, 21 back to the
prisoner of war cage, back to potentially 22 long-term detention facilities. 23
176. Q. How long would it take to build it? 24 A. This one here again not a
long time to build, 25 no, from an infrastructure perspective. 51 1 177. Q. The other one took I think they
said an hour 2 and a quarter. 3 A. Yes. 4 178. Q. This one a day? A day, maybe?
5 A. Yes, sure. It depends on how many people you 6 have assigned to the task.
7 179. Q. At 3E3-1, example of a 500 prisoner of war 8 holding area compound.
How long do you think it would 9 take to build that? 10 A. This is temporary
again, tented accommodation, 11 some of them have latrines and ablutions. Again
depending 12 on how many people you can assign to the job and how 13 quickly
you can assemble the stores, once you've got that 14 altogether, you know, a
week, maybe less. I don't know 15 what it says in the book. 16 180. Q. Actually
I don't think it says exactly. It 17 doesn't say. At page 3F1-1 --- 18 A. Which
is Appendix 1, I guess? 3F1-1, okay. 19 181. Q. It's Appendix 1, Outline
Establishment for 20 Administrative Staff for Prisoners of War Holding Areas 21
and Camps? 22 A. Yes. 23 182. Q. It shows the list of different personnel 24
required to operate the 500 prisoner of war camp? 25 A. Yes. In theory that's
what we think it will 52 1 take. 2 183.
Q. I counted something, it's about 55 or so? 3 A. Sure. 4 184. Q. It doesn't
have a list in here about how many 5 people it would take for the 200 prisoner
-- pardon me -- 6 the 200-person prisoner of war facility. How many staff 7 do
you think it would take to operate that one? 8 A. I have no idea. This is all
theory. This is 9 doctrine. This is what we think it would take if we had 10
all of the bells and whistles and the authorities and all 11 of that kind of
good stuff, that's what we think it would 12 take. 13 185. Q. So assuming that,
all the bells and whistles 14 and so forth, how many people do you think it
would take 15 to operate the 200-person prisoner of war holding camp? 16 A. I
have no idea. That's not my area of 17 expertise. I look at this and it sounds
reasonable. I 18 look at the bricks and mortar part because I am an 19
engineer. I can give you a better answer to that. So, 20 you know, looking at
it that sounds reasonable in theory 21 of operating what could be a prisoner of
war holding area 22 and camp. 23 MR. CHAMP: Colonel Noonan, thank you very
much. 24 Those are all the questions I have for you. 25 THE WITNESS:
Thanks. 53 1 MR. CHAMP: I want to thank
you again very much. 2 --- THE EXAMINATION ADJOURNED AT THE HOUR OF 4:37 IN THE
3 AFTERNOON. 4 5 WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing was 6 transcribed to the
best of our skill and ability, 7 from taped and monitored proceedings. 8 9
................................................ 10 G R S / B L / S P 1
Examination No. 07-0465.2 Court File No. T-324-07 2 3 FEDERAL COURT 4 B E T W E
E N: 5 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and 6 BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES
ASSOCIATION 7 8 Applicants 9 10 - and - 11 12 13 CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF 14
FOR THE CANADIAN FORCES, 15 MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE 16 and ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA 17 18 Respondents 19 20 21 ********************** 22
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COLONEL STEVEN NOONAN ON AFFIDAVIT 23 sworn May 1, 2007,
pursuant to an appointment made on 24 consent of the parties, to be reported by
Gillespie 25 Reporting Services, on May 2, 2007, commencing at the hour 26 of
2:50 in the afternoon. 27 *********************** 28 29 APPEARANCES: 30 Paul
Champ, for the Applicants 31 J. Sanderson Graham, for the Respondents 32 This
Examination was monitored by Gillespie Reporting Services at 33 Ottawa,
Ontario, having been duly appointed for the purpose.
1 (i) 2 3 INDEX 4 5 6 NAME OF WITNESS: COLONEL STEVEN NOONAN 7 8 EXAMINATION BY: MR. CHAMP 9 10 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 THROUGH 53 INCLUSIVE 11 12 13 14 15 16 ADVISEMENTS, OBJECTIONS & UNDERTAKINGS 17 18 19 *O* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8, 22, 29, 32, 33, 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBITS 26 27 (NONE ENTERED) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DATE TRANSCRIPT ORDERED: 02 MAY 2007 48 49 DATE TRANSCRIPT COMPLETED: 02 MAY 2007 50 51 _
1 (i) 2 3 INDEX 4 5 6 NAME OF WITNESS: COLONEL STEVEN NOONAN 7 8 EXAMINATION BY: MR. CHAMP 9 10 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 THROUGH 53 INCLUSIVE 11 12 13 14 15 16 ADVISEMENTS, OBJECTIONS & UNDERTAKINGS 17 18 19 *O* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8, 22, 29, 32, 33, 39 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBITS 26 27 (NONE ENTERED) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DATE TRANSCRIPT ORDERED: 02 MAY 2007 48 49 DATE TRANSCRIPT COMPLETED: 02 MAY 2007 50 51 _
----------------------------------
Amnesty
International...
Canada/Afghanistan: Stop
Detainee Transfers
Posted:
25 April 2007
GUMBAD, AFGHANISTAN: A suspected Taliban prisoner sits with his hands strapped and guarded by members of 1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, after a raid on a compound in Northern Kandahar, 10 May 2006. Ten suspects were subsequently handed over to the Afghan National Police. Taliban militia has released a DVD purporting to show suicide bombers shortly before they carry out attacks and calling for more strikes on US and British coalition troops.
JOHN D MCHUGH/AFP/Getty Images
Amnesty
International is concerned that Canadian forces in Afghanistan continue to
transfer detainees to Afghan custody despite persistent reports of torture and
other serious human rights violations. After repeated appeals for a voluntary
cessation of transfers, AI Canada is currently seeking an injunction in the
Federal Court.
Detention
conditions in Afghanistan remain sub-standard. Overcrowding, poor sanitation,
inappropriate shackling, and lack of access to medical care and legal
representation are the norm. In southern Afghanistan - where Canadian forces
are operating - the National Directorate of Security (NDS) has no effective
oversight and is believed to be responsible for arbitrary detention,
ill-treatment, torture and deaths in custody. Recent Globe and Mail
investigative reports published in April 2007 revealed that at least 30
detainees transferred from Canadian custody to the NDS had been tortured during
interrogation. In an April 23, 2007 story, the newspaper portrayed Colonel
Saddiqui, the human rights ombudsman for the Kandahar police, as displaying a
shocking disregard for the fate detainees: "In these cases, these people
need some torture, because without torture they will never say anything."
The
behaviour of other Afghan security forces receiving transferred detainees is
also troubling. In June 2006, a CTV television crew traveling with Canadian
troops reportedly recorded 'radio chatter' of a soldier saying that Afghan
forces were preparing to summarily execute a man caught in a raid. "Either
we take him or he gets executed" the soldier reportedly said, although the
detainee was later turned over to a different group of Afghans. CF soldiers
reportedly intervened in two other occasions in order to save a detainee, and
started "taking extra precautions to choose Afghan security forces that
will accept prisoners without harming them."
TAKE ACTION:
Canadian
soldiers must never be part of a process that could lead to torture. Please
write courteously worded letters to the Minister of Defence calling for
Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to stop transferring detainees until there can
be genuine measures put in place to ensure that no detainee is subjected to
torture and ill-treatment.
WRITE TO:
The Honorable Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K2
Canada
Fax: + 1 613 995 8189
Email: OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca
Salutation: Dear Minister
FURTHER BACKGROUND:
In
December 2005, the Chief of the Defence Staff for Canada, Genenal Hillier,
signed an "arrangement" with the Afghan Minister of Defence, Abdul
Raheem Wardak, to enable Canadian Forces (CF) to start transferring people they
detain in the context of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) mission to Afghan custody. The previous CF practice of transferring
detainees to United States forces led to serious human rights violations in
Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. Amnesty International is concerned that the new
arrangement once again fails to protect detainees from torture and other
serious human rights violations.
Under
the December 2005 transfer arrangement, the Canadian Forces retain no powers
for direct follow-up on detainees or notification of (or consent for) transfers
to third parties. Until recently, the main monitoring body implicated in the
arrangement was the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which
reports confidentially and only to the actual detaining power, leaving Canada
out of the loop once transfers are complete. While the Canadian government has
entered into a second agreement with the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission, it lacks capacity and has reported problems accessing some prisons
including the facilities of the National Directorate of Security. Monitoring,
however, is only part of the solution. The international community must continue
to support the long-term reform of prisons, police, armed forces and legal
system in Afghanistan.
After
years of raising concerns about detainee transfers, in February 2007, AI Canada
and the BC Civil Liberties Association applied for a judicial review of the
December 2005 Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement on the grounds that it
violated both the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms and Canada's
international obligations to prevent torture.
and...
ASA
11/021/2006
27 November 2006
27 November 2006
Afghanistan: NATO must
ensure justice for victims of civilian deaths and torture
NATO
leaders must set up a joint body, together with partners in Afghanistan, to
pursue justice for civilians whose human rights may have been violated by the
NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan, said
Amnesty International ahead of the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia on 28/29
November.
Amnesty International is concerned that the legal basis for the presence of ISAF in the country places it outside Afghan law and beyond the effective reach of justice in members' own countries.
"ISAF has a crucial role to play in securing the rule of law in Afghanistan. We urge NATO leaders to ensure that ISAF does not fall short of international humanitarian and human rights law in pursuing this aim," said Tim Parritt, Deputy Asia Pacific Director at Amnesty International.
"Any civilians who may have suffered human rights violations in the course of ISAF operations deserve to receive justice and we call on NATO to lead the establishment of a body to investigate such claims, ensure the prosecution of those found responsible, and ensure reparation for the victims."
Amnesty International is particularly concerned that:
Amnesty International is concerned that the legal basis for the presence of ISAF in the country places it outside Afghan law and beyond the effective reach of justice in members' own countries.
"ISAF has a crucial role to play in securing the rule of law in Afghanistan. We urge NATO leaders to ensure that ISAF does not fall short of international humanitarian and human rights law in pursuing this aim," said Tim Parritt, Deputy Asia Pacific Director at Amnesty International.
"Any civilians who may have suffered human rights violations in the course of ISAF operations deserve to receive justice and we call on NATO to lead the establishment of a body to investigate such claims, ensure the prosecution of those found responsible, and ensure reparation for the victims."
Amnesty International is particularly concerned that:
· Aerial
bombardments carried out as part of ISAF military operations have resulted in
the killing of civilians, according to reports. These attacks may have failed
to discriminate between civilians and military targets.
· These
operations have also contributed to the displacement of up to 90,000 people who
have fled their homes because of the violence.
· Detention
procedures currently used by ISAF may be resulting in the torture or
ill-treatment of Afghan nationals who are handed over to Afghan security forces
known to use such practices.
photo:
GUMBAD,
AFGHANISTAN: A suspected Taliban prisoner sits with his hands strapped and
guarded by members of 1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, after a
raid on a compound in Northern Kandahar, 10 May 2006. Ten suspects were
subsequently handed over to the Afghan National Police. Taliban militia has
released a DVD purporting to show suicide bombers shortly before they carry out
attacks and calling for more strikes on US and British coalition troops.
JOHN D MCHUGH/AFP/Getty Images
JOHN D MCHUGH/AFP/Getty Images
NATO should create a joint body together with its Afghan partners and the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) to pursue justice for human rights violations such as these. The body could draw on the Trust Fund called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001) to make any reparations to victims.
NATO members should ensure that ISAF complies fully with international law in the course of its operations and should cooperate with UNAMA and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in doing this. ISAF should pay particular attention to its arrest and detention procedures, including the handing over of detainees to Afghan custody.
Amnesty International has for many years raised concerns about the use of torture and ill-treatment by Afghan security forces, including the National Security Directorate.
See also: Afghanistan: NATO member states must uphold human rights standards through the establishment of body to investigate alleged violations of Afghanistan’s human rights laws, empowered to provide restitution (AI Index: ASA 11/020/2006, 27 November 2006).
For more information, please contact:
Elizabeth Berton-Hunter,
Media Relations (Toronto)
(416)363-9933 #32
http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/news/view.php?load=arcview&article=3810&c=Resource+Centre+News
and
their letter writing tips...
Letter Writing Tips
Updated:
10 August 2005
There are a few simple guidelines:
Always
be polite. This rule is essential and invariable. Your aim is to help stop
human rights abuses, not to relieve your own feelings. Governments don't
respond to abusive or condemnatory letters (however well deserved).
Assume
that the recipient of the letter is open to reason and discussion.
Whenever
possible stress the country's reputation for moderation and justice. Express
respect for its constitution and judicial procedures and convey an
understanding of any current difficulties. This will demonstrate a balanced
understanding on your part which will predispose the recipient of the letter to
be more open to your suggestions for human rights improvements
Follow
strictly the instructions given by Amnesty International in the case in
question. For instance, if you are asked to appeal for medical treatment for a
prisoner limit your written request to this topic. A speedy trial or release
might be desirable, but not appropriate for a specific situation.
Never
use political jargon. Don't give the impression that you are writing because
you are ideologically or politically opposed to the government in question. It
is far more effective to stress the fact that your concern for human rights is
not politically based in any way, but in keeping with basic principles of
international law.
Tell
them who you are and what you do. This shows that the letter is genuine and
that people from varying walks of life are following events in the country
concerned.
Mentions
any special interests in , or ties to, the country in question in your letter.
For instance, you may have visited it, studied its history, or been a member of
a local association for friendship with it.
Be
brief. A simple, one line letter is adequate and is certainly better than no
letter at all. Limit yourself to one page (one-side). Long letters are less
likely to be read. Only in exceptional cases are long letters effective.
AND..
Canada/Afghanistan:
Detainee transfers could resume at any time
The
following have agreed to include their names in the public listing:
Click
here
to return to the main petition page.
Maggie Mandzuk - Montreal, QC
December 14, 2009
Carrie Maxwell - Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
December 13, 2009
Darlene Garvey - Peterborough, ontario
December 13, 2009
It
is important that at a time when we have Canadians risking or giving up their
lives to restore human rights in Afghanistan, we do not allow our government to
make decisions based on fear. Not only fear for "operational
security" but fear of being held accountable for faulty judgement or a
lack of information. As Canadians, our ideal would be for another government to
respond with integrity when these types of violations were brought to light. We
can't expect any less of ourselves.
Shauna Farrell - Vancouver, BC
December 13, 2009
Shauna Farrell - Vancouver, BC
December 13, 2009
Michelle McIntosh - Courtenay, BC
December 13, 2009
Rylan Carnegie - Ottawa, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Ann Marie Curran - Dublin, Europe
December 12, 2009
If
detainees are not safe, who is? Who is next?
Dr. Priscilla Harding - Hamilton, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Dr. Priscilla Harding - Hamilton, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Chelsea Craig - Saint John, New Brunswick
December 12, 2009
I
continue concerned that your government refuses to bring Omar Khadr home from
Guantanamo. I think that this is related as CSIS and therefore your government
were very aware that he was being abused and perhaps tortured there. I'm sure
you are trying to avoid an embarrassing and expensive lawsuit. Torture is not
Canadian and unacceptable, especially torture of a child. History will not be
kind to you. I hope that you are ashamed, but doubt that you have enough
integrity or human decency to have any such concern.
Frankie McGrattan - Vancouver, BC
December 11, 2009
Frankie McGrattan - Vancouver, BC
December 11, 2009
Seema Khawaja - Edmonton, Alberta
December 11, 2009
I
am quite distressed that the Canadian Government, in choosing to be so cavalier
about turning over prisoners to torturers, has made our entire citizenry a
party to war crimes. Our global reputation has been tarnished and and our hands
have been bloodied. It makes me ashamed to call myself Canadian.
Alison McGillivray - Collingwood, Ontario
December 11, 2009
Alison McGillivray - Collingwood, Ontario
December 11, 2009
Pamela Segger - Lunenburg, NS
December 11, 2009
Gordon F. Kurtz - Bayfield, Ontario
December 11, 2009
I
am a naturalized Canadian citizen. For decades I have been proud to be a
Canadian. Sometimes I have been a bit embarrassed by things that various
governments have done over that time, but the first time that I actually felt
ashamed of being a Canadian was when I heard Peter McKay try to destroy the
reputation of Richard Colvin and deny his message. I know that many Canadians
who were born in this country feel the same way.
Carolyn Garlich - Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 11, 2009
Carolyn Garlich - Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 11, 2009
Ken O'Brien - St. John's, NL
December 10, 2009
Nêst Pritchard - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Emily Thibodeau - Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
December 10, 2009
A
very impassioned support of human rights and creating a better world by
devoting herself to a cause pointed me in this direction. What the world needs
is more people like her who will give themselves and their devotion to making a
real difference in the world.
Tim Perry - Halifax, NS
December 10, 2009
Tim Perry - Halifax, NS
December 10, 2009
The
Central Party of Canada feel that Canadians deserve a FULL PUBLIC INQUIRY
regarding the Afghan Detainee situation. Nothing less. signed: JOSEPH BONNEVIE
C0-FOUNDER CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA http://www.centralparty.ca
CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA - MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
December 10, 2009
CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA - MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
December 10, 2009
Glen Smith - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
brian muir - ottawa, ontario
December 10, 2009
To
whom it concerns: You know, the truth will always eventually come forth. What
has happened is a Canadian "travesty", but not surprising in this
filthy, toxic war where not one Canadian citizen truly knows what "the
mission" is. What is the mission that my taxpayer dollar is being used
for?? Thank God for courageous people like Mr. Colville. He will get
"brownie points" in heaven if there is indeed one.
Trina Wireton - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Trina Wireton - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Rolf Stuber - Männedorf, zh
December 10, 2009
I
recognize that the war in Afghanistan is a difficult one, but please respect
the Canadian public's ability to deal with ugly truths.
Scott McKeen - Vancouver, BC
December 10, 2009
Scott McKeen - Vancouver, BC
December 10, 2009
Elizabeth Gilarowski - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
patricia shandruk - vernon, british columbia
December 10, 2009
Keep
Canada True!
Andrea Lowe - mississauga, ontario
December 10, 2009
Andrea Lowe - mississauga, ontario
December 10, 2009
Katrina Nickmann - Brantford, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Kris Friesen - Edmonton, AB
December 10, 2009
Emily Tobin - Cardinal , Ontario
December 10, 2009
Alexandra Geneau - Brockville , Ontario
December 10, 2009
Aileen Lawless - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Adam Leroux - Brockville, ON
December 10, 2009
If
there is truly nothing shameful occuring, why do you refuse to fully
investigate the matter? The Canadian Public demands a detailed inquiry.
Kayla Kennedy - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Kayla Kennedy - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Jane Heo - Athens , ON
December 10, 2009
Aleisha Murray - Mallorytown, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Roxanne Walsh - Calgary, Alberta
December 10, 2009
Eileen Lonergan - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Carrie Francis - Burlington, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Adem Siekro - lomé, Togo
December 10, 2009
Jennifer J Elsey - Gabriola Island, , B.C.
December 10, 2009
Canada
has a proud record of leadership regarding human rights but recently that
record has been tarnished. Surely no action could be as unacceptable as
condoning and even colluding in torture. We must shine a public light on our
country's behavior in Afghanistan to make sure we correct any disgraces and
instead show positive leadership on the issue of prisoners of war.
Kirsten Krismer - Edmonton, Alberta
December 10, 2009
Kirsten Krismer - Edmonton, Alberta
December 10, 2009
You
can save our good name, and stop us from going down in history as a spineless,
hypocritical and cowardly nation, by doing the right thing NOW. It is never too
late to admit that you were wrong. It opens the way to make amends. That is
what strong, mature and honest men and women do. And that is what I want my
children and grandchildren to be. Proud to be Canadian. As I once was. Please
stop delaying a public enquiry. It only reinforces peoples' belief that you
have something to hide. I want to be a proud Canadian again.
Judith Kreps Hawkins - Port Hope, ON
December 9, 2009
Judith Kreps Hawkins - Port Hope, ON
December 9, 2009
Turning
a blind eye to torture is unacceptable any way you look at it. This issue
demands immediate attention on your part, Mr. Harper.
Hélène Brassard - Montreal, Quebec
December 9, 2009
Hélène Brassard - Montreal, Quebec
December 9, 2009
Laura Fisher - Cobble Hill, B.C.
December 9, 2009
Stephanie Coward-Yaskiw - Ottawa, Ontario
December 9, 2009
martha Eberle - dripping Springs, hays county, texas,
December 9, 2009
Mr.
Harper, please make this urgent matter a priority.
Lilianne Denis - Frankford, Ontario
December 9, 2009
Lilianne Denis - Frankford, Ontario
December 9, 2009
Michael Pelletier - Toronto, Ontario
December 9, 2009
page
2
Canada/Afghanistan:
Detainee transfers could resume at any time
The
following have agreed to include their names in the public listing:
Click
here
to return to the main petition page.
Eva Busse - Bancroft, Ontario
January 18, 2010
C. L. Sleeman - Vancouver, BC
January 18, 2010
J. Bowman - Ingersoll, Ontario
January 18, 2010
nadine Poznanski - vernon, BC
January 17, 2010
edward gannon - toronto, ontario
January 15, 2010
Killing
the messenger, albeit metaphorically, is not the solution. Treating it as a
partisan issue reflects bad faith. Good faith requires that we remove any
shadow of complicity in torture by the Canadian government and all of its
agencies. No one is above the law. That is why an inquiry is again required:
apparently the lessons learned in the Maher inquiry have not yet penetrated the
thinking of certain elements of our government.
Margaret Binek - Waterloo, Ontario
January 13, 2010
Margaret Binek - Waterloo, Ontario
January 13, 2010
Sol Gonzalez - Montréal, Québec
January 11, 2010
antonia levi - new westminster, bc
January 8, 2010
We,
as Canadians, should and can do the right thing and treat people as we wish to
be treated.
Shirley - Kelowna, BC
January 8, 2010
Shirley - Kelowna, BC
January 8, 2010
I'm
Canadian and this is very much on my radar.
Helen Hoy - Guelph, Ontario
January 7, 2010
Helen Hoy - Guelph, Ontario
January 7, 2010
Roberta Holden - Vancouver, British Columbia
January 7, 2010
Mishann Lau - Toronto, Ontario
January 7, 2010
I
do believe your act of prorogation is a tawdry effort to cover up what could
well be wide spread criminal complicity in this scandal. Get back to work and
face the music like a man!
Peter K. Vickers - Duncan, BC
January 7, 2010
Peter K. Vickers - Duncan, BC
January 7, 2010
Spencer Rasmussen - Vancouver, BC
January 7, 2010
Lilianna Prybek - Toronto, Ontario
January 7, 2010
Canada
should bring Omar Khadr back to Canada. He grew up experiencing American
torture.
Lucy Probyn - Montreal, Quebec
January 6, 2010
Lucy Probyn - Montreal, Quebec
January 6, 2010
Stephen Goyeche - Belfountain, Ontario
January 6, 2010
Anthony Jasaitis - Bridgeview, Illinois, USA
January 3, 2010
Michèle Charbonneau - Ottawa, Ontario
January 3, 2010
Even
a security-cleared oversight committee has been prevented from seeing
uncensored documents. What is the government hiding?
Eric Mills - Toronto, Ont
December 28, 2009
Eric Mills - Toronto, Ont
December 28, 2009
Doug Hicks - Everett, Ontario
December 26, 2009
Accountability
has definitely suffered over the last 5 years in Canada. For that reason alone,
I would sign this letter. But the business of war is unjustified, and adhering
to the UN Charter is of utmost importance - Canada is not living up to its
obligations. Please correct this situation of handling prisoners of war.
Lawrence Family - saanichton , bc
December 26, 2009
Lawrence Family - saanichton , bc
December 26, 2009
Canada
has a responsibility to honour its human rights obligations. Convening an Inquiry
would be a step along the road to this goal.
Anne Morris - Salmon Arm, BC
December 25, 2009
Anne Morris - Salmon Arm, BC
December 25, 2009
Earl Harrison - Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 24, 2009
Alison Hackney - Senneville, Quebec
December 22, 2009
We
were all so quick to condemn American torture of Iraqui prisoners. Now it seems
that we Canadians are not much better. We may not have dirtied our own hands...
just enabled others to do it instead. I am disgusted ....and heartsick.
Margaret Bergshoeff - Markham, Ontario
December 21, 2009
Margaret Bergshoeff - Markham, Ontario
December 21, 2009
Bethanna Cavey - Ottawa, Ontario
December 21, 2009
The
above says it all. Not only do we have an ethical and moral obligation to seek
out the truth but we have a reputation to uphold. Our beloved Canada is known
for its civil liberties and fair treatment of all people. I implore you to take
action now, to convene a full public Commission of Inquiry. Most Sincerely,
Jan Janssen - Barrie, Ontario
December 20, 2009
Jan Janssen - Barrie, Ontario
December 20, 2009
Valerie Perrault - Montreal, Quebec
December 20, 2009
Anne Warren - Granville Ferry, Nova Scotia
December 20, 2009
It
seems to me that your government is trying to sweep this issue "under the
rug", hoping Canadians will just forget it. Canadians will not forget this
issue, we believe in fair treatment for all peoples. And for you or your
ministers to try to turn this around saying Canadians don't support our troops
in Afghanistan, is totally wrong and manipulating the truth. All Canadians
support our troops and the difficult jobs that are doing in Afghanistan. It is
your officials who are letting them down.
Edna Caldwell - 274 Line 3, S., R. R. # 1, Sh, ON
December 19, 2009
Edna Caldwell - 274 Line 3, S., R. R. # 1, Sh, ON
December 19, 2009
Lesley Hastie - Huntsville, Ontario
December 18, 2009
Please
act quickly
Toshio Rahman - Vancouver, BC
December 18, 2009
Toshio Rahman - Vancouver, BC
December 18, 2009
zahid - toronto, on
December 18, 2009
Gloria Nafziger - Toronto, ON
December 17, 2009
I
think you are a disgusting human being and a hypocrite.
Trevor Goodger-Hill, Citizen of the World - Trottier Mills, Quebec
December 17, 2009
Trevor Goodger-Hill, Citizen of the World - Trottier Mills, Quebec
December 17, 2009
Jane Aspenlieder - Everett, Ontario
December 17, 2009
Claire Pella - Goderich, Ontario
December 17, 2009
Hannah Morrow - Ottawa, Ontario
December 16, 2009
Rosemary Tominaga - Vancouver , BC
December 16, 2009
tracy - hamilton, ontario
December 16, 2009
Jean Johnston - London, Ontario
December 16, 2009
We
must, as a nation, pursue our own, moral, courses of action, disregarding the
actions of our oft-foolish neighbours.
Bette McCracken - Barrie, Ontario
December 16, 2009
Bette McCracken - Barrie, Ontario
December 16, 2009
Tatiana - Lisbon, Portugal
December 15, 2009
Florence A. Robinson and Kenneth O. Robinson - Ottawa, Ontario
December 15, 2009
L. Moldenhuer - Bruno, Sask.
December 15, 2009
Mary Anne Connell - Palmerston, Ontario
December 15, 2009
M. Berti - Montreal, Quebec
December 15, 2009
It
is dishonorable not to act immediately on this issue. There is all the evidence
you need. It's unethical... as a Canadian i thought we were supposed to be role
models for human rights..I am 15 and as a future voter i will vote according to
how the government can support issue like this. Lets be peace keeper and peace
killers. I hope you understand, and will act soon.
Tenzin - Ottawa, ontario
December 14, 2009
Tenzin - Ottawa, ontario
December 14, 2009
Dinah Simmons - Halifax, Nova Scotia
December 14, 2009
Page
3
Canada/Afghanistan:
Detainee transfers could resume at any time
The
following have agreed to include their names in the public listing:
Click
here
to return to the main petition page.
Maggie Mandzuk - Montreal, QC
December 14, 2009
Carrie Maxwell - Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
December 13, 2009
Darlene Garvey - Peterborough, ontario
December 13, 2009
It
is important that at a time when we have Canadians risking or giving up their
lives to restore human rights in Afghanistan, we do not allow our government to
make decisions based on fear. Not only fear for "operational
security" but fear of being held accountable for faulty judgement or a
lack of information. As Canadians, our ideal would be for another government to
respond with integrity when these types of violations were brought to light. We
can't expect any less of ourselves.
Shauna Farrell - Vancouver, BC
December 13, 2009
Shauna Farrell - Vancouver, BC
December 13, 2009
Michelle McIntosh - Courtenay, BC
December 13, 2009
Rylan Carnegie - Ottawa, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Ann Marie Curran - Dublin, Europe
December 12, 2009
If
detainees are not safe, who is? Who is next?
Dr. Priscilla Harding - Hamilton, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Dr. Priscilla Harding - Hamilton, Ontario
December 12, 2009
Chelsea Craig - Saint John, New Brunswick
December 12, 2009
I
continue concerned that your government refuses to bring Omar Khadr home from
Guantanamo. I think that this is related as CSIS and therefore your government
were very aware that he was being abused and perhaps tortured there. I'm sure
you are trying to avoid an embarrassing and expensive lawsuit. Torture is not
Canadian and unacceptable, especially torture of a child. History will not be
kind to you. I hope that you are ashamed, but doubt that you have enough
integrity or human decency to have any such concern.
Frankie McGrattan - Vancouver, BC
December 11, 2009
Frankie McGrattan - Vancouver, BC
December 11, 2009
Seema Khawaja - Edmonton, Alberta
December 11, 2009
I
am quite distressed that the Canadian Government, in choosing to be so cavalier
about turning over prisoners to torturers, has made our entire citizenry a
party to war crimes. Our global reputation has been tarnished and and our hands
have been bloodied. It makes me ashamed to call myself Canadian.
Alison McGillivray - Collingwood, Ontario
December 11, 2009
Alison McGillivray - Collingwood, Ontario
December 11, 2009
Pamela Segger - Lunenburg, NS
December 11, 2009
Gordon F. Kurtz - Bayfield, Ontario
December 11, 2009
I
am a naturalized Canadian citizen. For decades I have been proud to be a
Canadian. Sometimes I have been a bit embarrassed by things that various
governments have done over that time, but the first time that I actually felt
ashamed of being a Canadian was when I heard Peter McKay try to destroy the
reputation of Richard Colvin and deny his message. I know that many Canadians
who were born in this country feel the same way.
Carolyn Garlich - Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 11, 2009
Carolyn Garlich - Winnipeg, Manitoba
December 11, 2009
Ken O'Brien - St. John's, NL
December 10, 2009
Nêst Pritchard - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Emily Thibodeau - Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
December 10, 2009
A
very impassioned support of human rights and creating a better world by
devoting herself to a cause pointed me in this direction. What the world needs
is more people like her who will give themselves and their devotion to making a
real difference in the world.
Tim Perry - Halifax, NS
December 10, 2009
Tim Perry - Halifax, NS
December 10, 2009
The
Central Party of Canada feel that Canadians deserve a FULL PUBLIC INQUIRY
regarding the Afghan Detainee situation. Nothing less. signed: JOSEPH BONNEVIE
C0-FOUNDER CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA http://www.centralparty.ca
CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA - MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
December 10, 2009
CENTRAL PARTY OF CANADA - MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK
December 10, 2009
Glen Smith - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
brian muir - ottawa, ontario
December 10, 2009
To
whom it concerns: You know, the truth will always eventually come forth. What
has happened is a Canadian "travesty", but not surprising in this
filthy, toxic war where not one Canadian citizen truly knows what "the
mission" is. What is the mission that my taxpayer dollar is being used
for?? Thank God for courageous people like Mr. Colville. He will get
"brownie points" in heaven if there is indeed one.
Trina Wireton - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Trina Wireton - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Rolf Stuber - Männedorf, zh
December 10, 2009
I
recognize that the war in Afghanistan is a difficult one, but please respect
the Canadian public's ability to deal with ugly truths.
Scott McKeen - Vancouver, BC
December 10, 2009
Scott McKeen - Vancouver, BC
December 10, 2009
Elizabeth Gilarowski - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
patricia shandruk - vernon, british columbia
December 10, 2009
Keep
Canada True!
Andrea Lowe - mississauga, ontario
December 10, 2009
Andrea Lowe - mississauga, ontario
December 10, 2009
Katrina Nickmann - Brantford, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Kris Friesen - Edmonton, AB
December 10, 2009
Emily Tobin - Cardinal , Ontario
December 10, 2009
Alexandra Geneau - Brockville , Ontario
December 10, 2009
Aileen Lawless - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Adam Leroux - Brockville, ON
December 10, 2009
If
there is truly nothing shameful occuring, why do you refuse to fully
investigate the matter? The Canadian Public demands a detailed inquiry.
Kayla Kennedy - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Kayla Kennedy - Brockville, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Jane Heo - Athens , ON
December 10, 2009
Aleisha Murray - Mallorytown, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Roxanne Walsh - Calgary, Alberta
December 10, 2009
Eileen Lonergan - Toronto, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Carrie Francis - Burlington, Ontario
December 10, 2009
Adem Siekro - lomé, Togo
December 10, 2009
Jennifer J Elsey - Gabriola Island, , B.C.
December 10, 2009
Canada
has a proud record of leadership regarding human rights but recently that
record has been tarnished. Surely no action could be as unacceptable as
condoning and even colluding in torture. We must shine a public light on our
country's behavior in Afghanistan to make sure we correct any disgraces and
instead show positive leadership on the issue of prisoners of war.
Kirsten Krismer - Edmonton, Alberta
December 10, 2009
Kirsten Krismer - Edmonton, Alberta
December 10, 2009
You
can save our good name, and stop us from going down in history as a spineless,
hypocritical and cowardly nation, by doing the right thing NOW. It is never too
late to admit that you were wrong. It opens the way to make amends. That is
what strong, mature and honest men and women do. And that is what I want my
children and grandchildren to be. Proud to be Canadian. As I once was. Please
stop delaying a public enquiry. It only reinforces peoples' belief that you
have something to hide. I want to be a proud Canadian again.
Judith Kreps Hawkins - Port Hope, ON
December 9, 2009
Judith Kreps Hawkins - Port Hope, ON
December 9, 2009
Turning
a blind eye to torture is unacceptable any way you look at it. This issue
demands immediate attention on your part, Mr. Harper.
Hélène Brassard - Montreal, Quebec
December 9, 2009
Hélène Brassard - Montreal, Quebec
December 9, 2009
Laura Fisher - Cobble Hill, B.C.
December 9, 2009
Stephanie Coward-Yaskiw - Ottawa, Ontario
December 9, 2009
martha Eberle - dripping Springs, hays county, texas,
December 9, 2009
Mr.
Harper, please make this urgent matter a priority.
Lilianne Denis - Frankford, Ontario
December 9, 2009
Lilianne Denis - Frankford, Ontario
December 9, 2009
Michael Pelletier - Toronto, Ontario
December 9, 2009
---------
15
April 2010 2:33 pm
Posted
by: Hilary Homes
Originally
published 6 April 2010
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.”
Read
the full AI
news release
---------
23
March 2010 3:27 pm
Posted
by: Hilary Homes
Amnesty
International has released a new briefing outlining its call for a full,
independent and impartial inquiry into UK involvement in human rights abuses
post-11 September 2001. The briefing outlines ten key questions that an inquiry
should seek to answer.
Amnesty
International UK Head of Policy and Government Affairs, Jeremy Croft, said:
“Our briefing today sets out the arguments for a full, independent and
wide-ranging inquiry into the UK’s involvement in human rights abuses like
renditions, unlawful detentions and torture overseas post-11 September 2001.
“There
is compelling evidence that the UK has been involved in these human rights
violations. Yet the government’s response has been one of denial and of hiding
behind a wall of secrecy.
“It
has shown no real commitment whatsoever to principles of transparency and
accountability. The government is attempting to have victims’ civil court
cases, concerning credible evidence of the UK's involvement in human rights
violations, heard in secret.
“The
UK has a duty under domestic and international human rights law to conduct such
an inquiry. But moreover, the public needs to be assured that UK personnel are
acting within the law and with respect for basic human rights.”
Read
the press
release | briefing
paper
----------------
No Security Without Human
Rights
Like
many before them, the proponents of the so-called “war on terror” have sought
to justify their actions in the name of national security. The result has been
the systematic undermining of hard-fought for human rights protections including
freedom from discrimination, torture and arbitrary detention. Threats will
always be out there from many quarters, be they armed struggles, natural
disasters or yet unknown sources. But pursuing genuine security for everyone
means placing human rights at the centre of our response. From the headline
grabbing cases like Omar Khadr in Guantánamo Bay to the forgotten victims of
the "war on terror", this blog covers a wide range of topics on
Amnesty International’s work to uphold human rights for all without exception.
19
April 2010 1:29 pm
Posted
by: Hilary Homes
"Ghosts"
brings to light the nearly forgotten story of the foreign detention and torture
of three Canadian Muslim men and the continuing impact on their lives. This
documentary was awarded the "Prix du Public" at the Montreal Human
Rights Film Festival 2010.
WHAT:
Screening of the Documentary “Ghosts” followed by a panel discussion
WHEN: Monday, April 26 2010, 7:00 pm
WHERE: Ottawa Public Library Auditorium, 120 Metcalfe
SPONSORED BY: Amnesty International and nowar-paix.
WHEN: Monday, April 26 2010, 7:00 pm
WHERE: Ottawa Public Library Auditorium, 120 Metcalfe
SPONSORED BY: Amnesty International and nowar-paix.
Participants
in the Panel Discussion:
Morvary
Samaré—Director and Producer of Ghosts
Astrid
Schau Larsen—Producer of Ghosts
Abdullah
Almalki—detained and tortured in Syria
Hilary
Homes--Amnesty International Campaigner for International Justice, Security and
Human Rights click for
more...
---------
------------------
March
5, 2010
Canada judge to review Afghan detainee documents
before release to Parliament
Zach Zagger at 1:14 PM ET
Zach Zagger at 1:14 PM ET
JURIST]
Canadian Justice Minister Rob
Nicholson [official profile] announced Friday that a former Supreme Court of Canada [official website]
judge will review documents detailing Canadian forces' treatment of Afghan
detainees before the documents are released to Parliament
[official website]. Nicholson appointed former judge Frank Iacobucci
[UToronto backgrounder] to review
the documents [CBC report] and report back to Nicholson, who will determine
the conditions of disclosure. The announcement comes amidst mounting pressure
from Parliament for the release of the documents. In December, Parliament
passed an order
to compel [JURIST report] Prime Minister Stephen Harper to release the
documents, and earlier this week, some MPs considered
a vote to sanction [Toronto Sun report] high-level cabinet ministers for
refusing to disclose them. MP Derek
Lee (Liberal) [official website] has criticized
[press release] the refusal to disclose the documents, which may contain
evidence that detainees were tortured.
In December, the Canadian government released [JURIST report] more than 40 redacted e-mails [text, PDF] sent by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin to then-foreign minister Peter MacKay [official profile] raising concerns about the torture of transferred detainees. The release of the e-mails came after Colvin testified [JURIST report] before a Commons committee in November that all enemy combatants captured in 2006 and 2007 by Canadian forces were likely tortured upon their transfer to Afghan authorities. Throughout the spring of 2006, Colvin relayed allegations made by the International Committee of the Red Cross [official website] that Afghan authorities were routinely torturing detainees, and that by refusing information requests and failing to provide timely notice of transfer to Afghan custody, the Canadian military was hindering efforts to track Afghan detainees and monitor their treatment.
In December, the Canadian government released [JURIST report] more than 40 redacted e-mails [text, PDF] sent by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin to then-foreign minister Peter MacKay [official profile] raising concerns about the torture of transferred detainees. The release of the e-mails came after Colvin testified [JURIST report] before a Commons committee in November that all enemy combatants captured in 2006 and 2007 by Canadian forces were likely tortured upon their transfer to Afghan authorities. Throughout the spring of 2006, Colvin relayed allegations made by the International Committee of the Red Cross [official website] that Afghan authorities were routinely torturing detainees, and that by refusing information requests and failing to provide timely notice of transfer to Afghan custody, the Canadian military was hindering efforts to track Afghan detainees and monitor their treatment.
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.