- MacKay's defense on Afghan Detainee Transfers is the OJ Simpson defense - vis.: 'oh yah, Prove It'

Tories attack credibility of diplomat
who blew whistle on torture, Steven Chase, Paul Koring and Josh Wingrove, Nov. 20, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-work-to-undermine-diplomat-who-blew-whistle-on-torture/article1369993/Tab 96


When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are denying something their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, prove it"

When Harper, MacKay and the Con's generally are alleging something, their approach is "it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as its plausible".

The underlying principle is that 'The Truth Doesn't Matter'. 'The only thing that matters is political expedience, the Truth be damned'.

Peter MacKay attacking Richard Colvin's credibility is totally ludicrous. MacKay is the one who promised not to allow the Progressive Conservative Party absorbed by the Alliance (now Con Party), and when he did he wrote off the 'promise' by saying that over 90% of the party supported it. Peter MacKay is the guy who said 'if it's not in Hansard, it didn't happen'.

Attacking Colvin's credibility by saying he had the chance to tell MacKay in person when he was there on an official visit, is of course, simply grasping at straws. First Colvin had sent out, what was it, 80 E-mails to everyone. MacKay does not explain why Colvin would have any reason to believe that Mackay or anyone else had not received it. It was an official visit and bringing this matter up was out of line and could cost him his job. He had also been leaned on by his superiors about his 'whistle-blowing' activities and this would only re-enforce his concerns about losing his job.

The chances that Richard Colvin is lying, or even exaggerating, is remote. He has no motivation to lie and every motivation to not say anything - his career. It would be very easy for him to say nothing and he had to know that by raising this issue he would be exposing himself to the fate of any "whistle-blower' - exactly what is now happening. Also, apparently the Federal Court has accepted Colvin testimony as credible, where there was an opportunity to cross-examine him, fairly and withing the rule of law.

MacKay's attack on Colvin's credibility is an unconscionable effort to obscure and obstruct and prevent the truth from being revealed to all Canadians.

Either MacKay and other high level government officials were aware of these E-mails or they weren't. Attacking Colvin's credibility could only be an excuse if MacKay had been aware of them but wrote them off as untrustworthy. If MacKay was aware of them then he ought to come out and admit it. Then, it is a question of, given that these reports are very serious with catastrophic consequences for Canada's reputation and the troupes in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghans being tortured, and are from such a high level diplomat they ought to have been investigated, as opposed to simply written off. Of course MacKay would also have to explain his position back in 2006 - 2007 when he was basically saying the same thing as now (except the part about being aware of these E-mails) and attacking the loyalty of serious and true minded Members of Parliament as being Taliban sympathizers.

If MacKay is saying that he, and other high level government officials, inside the armed forces and out, were not aware of these E-mails, then it is unconscionable to attack Colvin's credibility, they couldn't have written these E-mails off as not credible if they weren't aware of them. Then the question is why they weren't aware of them, itself scandalous, given their nature.

The only motivation Colvin could have had was for the reputation of Canada and the protection of Canadian troupes from accusations of war crimes.


Also, as Colvin has testified:


According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.

Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.

In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.

This, of course, flies in the face of MacKay's allegation that Colvin was relying on people who through acid in the face of girls and the Taliban and exposes Mackay, Harper and the Con's for what they really are, right wing extremists who only concern is clutching, grabbing and holding onto power, Canada be damned.

Excerpt of Richard Colvin's testimony at the House of Commons committee
(from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/testimony-on-afghan-detainees/article1368821/


Why should Canadians care?

One may ask rhetorically, ‘Even if Afghan detainees were being tortured, why should Canadians care?'
There are five compelling reasons.

First, our detainees were not what intelligence services would call ‘high-value targets,' such as IED
(improvised explosive device) bomb-makers, al-Qaeda terrorists or Taliban commanders. ‘High-value
targets' would be detained under a completely different mechanism that involves special forces and
targeted, intelligence-driven operations. The Afghans I am discussing today were picked up by
conventional forces during routine military operations, and on the basis typically not of intelligence
but suspicion or unproven denunciation.

According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to the
insurgency whatsoever. From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value. Frankly, the
NDS (Afghan intelligence service) did not want them.

Some of these Afghans may have been foot soldiers or day fighters. But many were just local people —
farmers, truck drivers, tailors, peasants; random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time;
young men in their fields and villages who were completely innocent but were nevertheless rounded up.
In other words, we detained, and handed over for severe torture, a lot of innocent people.

A second reason Canadians should care is that seizing people and rendering them for torture is a very
serious violation of international and Canadian law. Complicity in torture is a war crime. It is
illegal and prosecutable.

Third, Canada has always been a powerful advocate of international law and human rights. That is a
keystone of who we are as Canadians, and what we have always stood for as a people and nation. If we
disregard our core principles and values, we also lose our moral authority abroad. If we are complicit
in the torture of Afghans in Kandahar, how can we credibly promote human rights in Tehran or Beijing?

Fourth, our actions were counter to our own stated policies. In April 2007, Prime Minister Stephen
Harper said publicly that “Canadian military officials don't send individuals off to be tortured.” That
was indeed our official policy. But behind the military's wall of secrecy, that, unfortunately, is
exactly what we were doing.

And finally, even if all the Afghans we detained had been Taliban, it would still have been wrong to
have them tortured. The Canadian military is proud and professional organization, thoroughly trained in
the rules of war and the correct treatment of prisoners.

I would like to quote the authoritative military manual on counter-insurgency. It says that “the abuse
of detained persons is immoral, illegal and unprofessional .... Torture, and cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment, is never a morally permissible option, even if lives depend on gaining information
.... The methods used (by the military) must reflect the nation's commitment to human dignity and
international humanitarian law.”

Even when we look at our U.S. allies, who work with us in Kandahar, their top commander Gen. David
Petraeus lists 10 ‘big ideas' of counter-insurgency. One is ‘Live your values.' He said that “whenever
we place expediency above our values, we end up regretting it.” In a counter-insurgency, “when you lose
moral legitimacy, you lose the war.”

Canada's counter-insurgency doctrine makes the same points: “Persons not taking part in hostilities” —
including fighters who have been detained — “must be treated humanely. Once (local) citizens have lost
confidence in (foreign) military forces ..., their sympathies and support will be transferred to the
insurgents.”

Counter-insurgency is an argument to win the support of the locals. Every action, reaction or failure
to act become part of the debate. In Kandahar, Canada needs to convince local people that we are better than the Taliban, that our values were superior, that we would look after their interests and protect
them. In my judgment, some of our actions in Kandahar, including complicity in torture, turned local
people against us. Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners.
Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.

Thank you