Globe: Transfer deal for detainees called lacking in safeguards
Post
Thursday, June 1, 2006, Globe and Mail, The Afghan Mission, Transfer deal for detainees called lacking in safeguards, Paul Koring
WASHINGTON -- Canada should imprison Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in its own camp rather than handing them to Afghan military authorities, at least until NATO signs a new and more stringent transfer agreement, NDP defence critic Dawn Black said yesterday.
Ms. Black and human-rights organizations say the Canadian transfer deal signed in December -- which requires Canadian troops to hand over detainees to Afghan authorities -- is gravely flawed. It fails, they say, to meet international law requiring Canada to ensure detainees aren't subject to abuse or torture after being handed over.
"We should provide an environment under Canadian control" until the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- which is to take command of Canadian Forces currently reporting to a U.S. general -- arranges a new detainee-transfer policy, Ms. Black said in an interview.
"Surely we should err on the side of caution," she said, adding that the transfer agreement the Dutch military has struck with the Afghans includes key safeguards, such as follow-up checks by Dutch officials, not in the Canadian agreement.
There has been no public accounting for how many detainees have been handed over by Canadian Forces, where they are being held, whether any have been released or charged, or the conditions of their imprisonment.
Top Canadian defence officials confirm that NATO is working on a new detainee-transfer policy, but it remains unclear whether it will supersede bilateral deals already signed by Canada, the Netherlands and Britain.
"Canada is very involved in Brussels in helping draft that document, but it's not finished yet," Vincent Rigby, acting assistant deputy minister for defence policy, told Ms. Black in a committee hearing this week.
"One of the issues is how it [the NATO arrangement] is going to affect the Canadian detainee arrangements and other detainee arrangements that NATO allies have right now."
Canada has avoided holding captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters for years, handing them over as quickly as possible, first to U.S. forces and, more recently, to Afghan authorities.
But experts in international law and human-rights groups say Canada cannot claim it is blameless if those detainees are subsequently ill-treated or killed.
"We're putting a lot of money and time and lives into Afghanistan, and to do anything to compromise on our own standards of civilization would be a grievous mistake," said Michael Byers, an expert in international law as it pertains to war, who has been sharply critical of Ottawa's detainee-transfer deal and regards the Dutch deal as an admirable model for safeguarding detainees.
Terrible things can happen even to countries with fine reputations for human rights and well-trained, highly disciplined soldiers, he said. "Somalia becomes an argument in favour of a robust transfer agreement; it becomes an argument in favour of building a [joint] detention facility with our NATO allies and maybe with Afghanistan."
Mr. Byers said Canada's current "detainee-transfer agreement is a violation of the prohibition on transferring people to [where] they might be at risk of torture."
However, he believes Ottawa might be on solid ground in its assertion that Taliban and al-Qaeda captives don't merit prisoner-of-war status under the 1949 Geneva Conventions because they are not combatants in an international conflict.
But Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal Party defence critic, said the government was wrong to say fighters captured on Afghan battlefields didn't merit full PoW status under the Geneva Conventions. "We went into Afghanistan legitimately to ensure that the Taliban regime is uprooted and defeated," he said yesterday.
Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, says the government "can't pick and choose when it comes to international law."
Rather than parse which elements don't apply, "the government needs to make a really clear elaboration of the international human-rights laws that do apply," he said.
Retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie suggests that Ottawa's hurry to hand detainees over to the Afghan army reflects an unwillingness to build and run a prison camp. "It could be done, but it would be a real stretch" for a military already strained by the Afghan deployment, he said.
Mr. Mackenzie said he was "uncomfortable with" the current transfer arrangement, but added, "I don't see a lot of other options."
WASHINGTON -- Canada should imprison Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees in its own camp rather than handing them to Afghan military authorities, at least until NATO signs a new and more stringent transfer agreement, NDP defence critic Dawn Black said yesterday.
Ms. Black and human-rights organizations say the Canadian transfer deal signed in December -- which requires Canadian troops to hand over detainees to Afghan authorities -- is gravely flawed. It fails, they say, to meet international law requiring Canada to ensure detainees aren't subject to abuse or torture after being handed over.
"We should provide an environment under Canadian control" until the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- which is to take command of Canadian Forces currently reporting to a U.S. general -- arranges a new detainee-transfer policy, Ms. Black said in an interview.
"Surely we should err on the side of caution," she said, adding that the transfer agreement the Dutch military has struck with the Afghans includes key safeguards, such as follow-up checks by Dutch officials, not in the Canadian agreement.
There has been no public accounting for how many detainees have been handed over by Canadian Forces, where they are being held, whether any have been released or charged, or the conditions of their imprisonment.
Top Canadian defence officials confirm that NATO is working on a new detainee-transfer policy, but it remains unclear whether it will supersede bilateral deals already signed by Canada, the Netherlands and Britain.
"Canada is very involved in Brussels in helping draft that document, but it's not finished yet," Vincent Rigby, acting assistant deputy minister for defence policy, told Ms. Black in a committee hearing this week.
"One of the issues is how it [the NATO arrangement] is going to affect the Canadian detainee arrangements and other detainee arrangements that NATO allies have right now."
Canada has avoided holding captured al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters for years, handing them over as quickly as possible, first to U.S. forces and, more recently, to Afghan authorities.
But experts in international law and human-rights groups say Canada cannot claim it is blameless if those detainees are subsequently ill-treated or killed.
"We're putting a lot of money and time and lives into Afghanistan, and to do anything to compromise on our own standards of civilization would be a grievous mistake," said Michael Byers, an expert in international law as it pertains to war, who has been sharply critical of Ottawa's detainee-transfer deal and regards the Dutch deal as an admirable model for safeguarding detainees.
Terrible things can happen even to countries with fine reputations for human rights and well-trained, highly disciplined soldiers, he said. "Somalia becomes an argument in favour of a robust transfer agreement; it becomes an argument in favour of building a [joint] detention facility with our NATO allies and maybe with Afghanistan."
Mr. Byers said Canada's current "detainee-transfer agreement is a violation of the prohibition on transferring people to [where] they might be at risk of torture."
However, he believes Ottawa might be on solid ground in its assertion that Taliban and al-Qaeda captives don't merit prisoner-of-war status under the 1949 Geneva Conventions because they are not combatants in an international conflict.
But Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal Party defence critic, said the government was wrong to say fighters captured on Afghan battlefields didn't merit full PoW status under the Geneva Conventions. "We went into Afghanistan legitimately to ensure that the Taliban regime is uprooted and defeated," he said yesterday.
Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, says the government "can't pick and choose when it comes to international law."
Rather than parse which elements don't apply, "the government needs to make a really clear elaboration of the international human-rights laws that do apply," he said.
Retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie suggests that Ottawa's hurry to hand detainees over to the Afghan army reflects an unwillingness to build and run a prison camp. "It could be done, but it would be a real stretch" for a military already strained by the Afghan deployment, he said.
Mr. Mackenzie said he was "uncomfortable with" the current transfer arrangement, but added, "I don't see a lot of other options."
Home