Secret prisons by any other name...

The NYT reports that the ICRC will now be given the names of so-called terrorist suspects in Obama's secret prisons "temporary screening sites" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But, wait a minute, you're thinking - didn't Obama close the secret prisons?

Well, no.

The executive order he signed last January only included secret CIA prisons. (And we'll never really know if that has actually happened, will we?) Meanwhile, the US military is still more than free to have its own little private gulags.

The New York Times reported in 2006 that some soldiers at the temporary detention site in Iraq, then located at Baghdad International Airport and called Camp Nama, beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces, and used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball.

Military officials say conditions at the camps have improved significantly since then, but virtually all details of the sites remain shrouded in secrecy.

There's more of that promised transparency Obama campaigned on.

How often do we need to be reminded that people taken prisoner during these wars have been continuously denied their basic human rights while our governments pretend otherwise?
 

O'Connor Apologizes: Too little, too late

Gordon O'Connor recently got his lying ass handed to him on a plate when it was revealed that he had misled parliament about the role the ICRC supposedly had in overseeing the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan from our troops to Afghan officials - a practice that has resulted in allegations from at least 18 men that they were abused at the hands of those officials.

O'Connor was forced to apologize and did so in the house today.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information for members," O'Connor said Monday in Parliament. "I take full responsibility and do so without hesitations."

"The International Red Cross Committee is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainess transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities."

O'Connor also tabled letters to correct information he and other DND officials provided to the House of Commons.

In a report by The Globe and Mail earlier this month, the ICRC denied O'Connor's initial claims saying they were not responsible for monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement.

The report contradicted numerous statements by O'Connor including one he made to the House on May 31, 2006:

"The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

As late at March 4, 2007, O'Connor told CTV's Question Period that DND was "reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor" the treatment of detainees.

He said his previous statements had been "inadvertent" and that they were made "in good faith". In other words, he had absolutely no idea what the non-binding farce of an agreement General Hillier had signed with the Afghan government in December, 2005 even consisted of. Further, as a former military man, O'Connor should have known exactly what the ICRC does and does not do regarding the handling of detainee matters.

He's incompetent and should be fired. Period.

Update: O'Connor is under fire in question period from all of the opposition parties over these detainee issues. His standard response is that "there are 4 investigations" underway which, of course, led to even more questions about his department's attempts to challenge the jurisdiction of the Military Complaints Commission just last week. He's apparently backing down from that threat now. O'Connor was also asked about the fate of the 3 missing detainees, of whom he said previously:

"Everybody can be found", O'Connor said, adding that we should "wait until the end of the investigation" to find out what happened to them. "We'll wait to see whether they're missing or not", O'Connor added.

That statement implied he might actually know where they were. Obviously, he has no idea what's happened to them.

Here's why all of this is such a huge issue. Last fall, Human Rights Watch issued a letter to NATO about the conditions detainees are held under in Afghanistan:

US forces in Afghanistan have arbitrarily detained civilians, used excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreated detainees. This behavior led to widespread anger among Afghans and elicited official complaints from President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan officials. It is important for NATO forces to establish a uniform set of lawful and transparent procedures for handling Afghans detained in the course of military operations.

Recognizing that US forces did not comply with the legal standards applicable to their operations in Afghanistan, several NATO countries have signed bilateral agreements with the Afghan Ministry of Defense regulating the transfer of detainees from NATO forces to Afghan authorities. While the agreements differ in some details, they share many common features, such as an agreement that NATO forces will release detainees or transfer them to Afghan custody within 96 hours, and that NATO and Afghan authorities will treat detainees in accordance with international law. The agreements further stipulate that Afghan authorities will not try, release, or transfer detainees to a third country without the explicit agreement of NATO forces (presumably to avoid transfer of detainees to US custody or other jurisdictions where detainees may be subject to mistreatment). Under the agreements seen by Human Rights Watch, NATO forces, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, will have access to detainees even after they have been transferred to Afghan custody. [ed. That obviously is not the case with Canada's agreement with the ICRC.]

Afghan detainees receive greater protection under these agreements than they receive from the US military, but we are concerned that detainees remain at risk of abuse unless NATO improves the terms and implementation of its policies toward detainees in Afghanistan.

NATO forces have stated that they have detained only a few detainees, even in the heavy combat zones of southern Afghanistan. Dutch forces operating in Oruzgan announced their first five detainees two weeks ago, while British and Canadian forces operating in Helmand and Kandahar, respectively, have publicly acknowledged fewer than 100 detainees. Given the ferocity of the fighting in these areas, the absence of more detainees raises two alarming alternatives: either that NATO forces are not taking detainees, or, more likely, that NATO forces are circumventing their bilateral agreements by immediately turning over detainees to Afghan authorities and thus abrogating their responsibility to monitor the detainees’ treatment.

We have received credible reports about mistreatment of detainees transferred by NATO to Afghan authorities. It is our understanding that the Afghan Ministry of Defense does not have in place a legal framework for holding detainees. We understand that the Afghan government has not yet ratified a law on military tribunals drafted with the assistance of US authorities. For now, we understand that in practice most NATO detainees are transferred to the National Directorate of Security (NDS), an opaque, unaccountable and abusive institution still governed by classified laws promulgated during Afghanistan’s communist era. The NDS operates detention centers that fail to meet international standards for the treatment of detainees.

Although the NDS has made efforts to disassociate itself from its predecessor KHAD, which was notorious for torture, Human Rights Watch has received credible reports of detainees being mistreated by the NDS; in some cases the treatment amounted to torture. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch has recently learned that on at least one occasion the NDS hid a detainee who had been handed over by NATO from the ICRC.

Human Rights Watch urges NATO to formulate and articulate a common policy that requires NATO members to be involved at all stages of the detention process. NATO should ensure that the ICRC, United Nations, and Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission have access to all detention centers where NATO detainees are held to monitor prison conditions and investigate allegations of prisoner abuse. Finally, NATO and the Afghan Government should publicize the names of detainees and the date and location of their arrest as well the name of the detainee’s father, birthplace, and current village or town. [ed. That is not included in Canada's agreement with the AIHRC.]

Even though O'Connor continually told the house on Monday that he has complete confidence in the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission and that he'll wait for the results of the 4 investigations now underway in Canada, it seems the head of that commission has already passed judgement on the situation:

The leader of Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission suggests it's a difficult job to monitor the treatment of Taliban prisoners.

Abdul Noorzai says the commission only has 48 staff in the Kandahar region, and eight of those are directly involved in reviewing complaints or visiting prisons.

The Human Rights Commission for the Kandahar region signed an agreement with Canada last month to monitor and report on any abuse of detainees.

Noorzai acknowledges abuse and even torture of prison inmates is an ongoing problem in Afghan prisons.

But he told The Canadian Press he has no evidence that any Taliban suspects handed over to the Afghan government by Canadian troops have ever been abused.

How can he possibly state that when the agreement signed with his organization to oversee detainee treatment only came into force this month? Are we really expected to believe that those 8 staff members have done a thorough investigation of all of the compliants?

There is something seriously wrong with all of this and O'Connor is not to be trusted to sort it all out.
 

O'Connor's Damage Control Trip to Afghanistan

Defence minister Gordon O'Connor is in trouble - and he knows it. O'Connor made a surprise trip to Afghanistan this weekend to meet with members of that country's human rights commission.

The Canadian military recently and secretly signed an agreement with that body to get it involved with overseeing the transfer of detainees handed over by its troops to Afghan authories. That news came out following the revelations of alleged abuse of 3 Afghan detainees by Canadian soldiers (for which there are now 4 investigations underway) who have since disappeared. Handy timing. O'Connor claimed that the defence department had been working on that agreement since last summer but didn't explain why it would take such a long time for such a pact to be enacted (if his claim is even true).

O'Connor is rightly under fire for lying about the defence department's agreement with the ICRC. He claimed they were responsible for monitoring the detainees after they were turned over. An ICRC official denied that claim, obviously leaving O'Connor in the hot seat.

So, now O'Connor has made a hasty trip to Afghanistan for a photo op to make it look like he's actually on top of things. He's not. And he's as transparently arrogant as they come.

Via The Toronto Star:

O'Connor said that during his surprise visit he wants to go over the terms of the agreement to ensure it works.

"In addition to talking with the human rights organization here, I am also going to go through the entire process here on the ground. The staff are going to explain to me the entire process – how it happens."

Now, why would our defence minister need to waste taxpayers' money by going to Afghanistan to find out what's going on? Wasn't he briefed about this agreement and the processes involved in transfering detainees by General Hillier, whose hand has been in all of this - beginning with his signing of the ICRC agreement back in December, 2005?

Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission is investing allegations that on 18 occasions troops handed over prisoners knowing they would be abused.

That's why O'Connor is in Afghanistan today - to make it look like 1) he actually knows what he's doing and 2) to cover his ass because he's failed. Canada doesn't need its version of Donald Rumsfeld who was never held accountable for anything. O'Connor should be fired.
 

O'Connor Lied About Red Cross Monitoring of Detainees

Is this enough to get Gordon O'Connor turfed, finally?

WASHINGTON — The International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed Wednesday that it has no role in monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement, in direct contradiction to assurances Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has made to the House of Commons.

The Red Cross also said that it would never divulge to Ottawa any abuses it might identify in Afghan prisons.

“We were informed of the agreement, but we are not a party to it and we are not monitoring the implementation of it,” Simon Schorno, a spokesman for the ICRC, said in an interview.

In his most explicit statement to the House of Commons on May 31, Mr. O'Connor said: “The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action.”
[...]
Even the Foreign Affairs Department has now formally contradicted the minister's statement.

“The ICRC is not required to notify Canada,” Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Ambra Dickie confirmed in an e-mail,..

That's exactly what I've been writing about: here, here and here.

I'm glad the ICRC finally spoke up and that the G&M reporters took the time to actually fact check this situation. O'Connor has been bumbling his way through this entire affair. Either he's too damn clueless to be the defence minister or he's lying. Either way, as I've written before, he should be fired. Enough is enough.
 

Does O'Connor Know Where the Missing Detainees Are?

Bolstered by a few cagey smirks defence minister O'Connor, in response to questions by Jane Taber on Sunday's CTV Question Period about the fate of the missing Afghan detainees, responded with vague hints that he actually knows where they are. "Everybody can be found", O'Connor said, adding that we should "wait until the end of the investigation" to find out what happened to them. "We'll wait to see whether they're missing or not", O'Connor added.

What exactly does that mean? And if he knows where they are, why isn't he admitting that? It would seem to be incredibly naive to publicly imply that the DoD knows where the detainees are. If they actually escaped custody to run from their alleged crimes, they've now been told that this defence minister has a handle on their location. If they are in hiding because they were abused while being transferred and/or detained, they've now been told that their location is unsafe. Either way, they will most likely disappear once again which will only frustrate any investigation into their alleged abuse by Canadian forces.

The only other possibility is that the DoD has them in custody somewhere and isn't admitting it.

O'Connor is far too comfortable with how alleged suspects are treated once Canadian forces hand them over to the Afghanistan government.

"We're there in support of the Afghan government and when we get insurgents who break the law we hand them over to the authorities," O'Connor said.

First of all, it's not up to the Canadian forces to decide who has broken the law. That's the role of the courts.

"We want assurances that they're treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I know according to the rules of law they don't have to be treated under the Geneva Convention, but we insist that they are. We are reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor this and now we're asking the human rights organization to also do it."

The problem with relying on the ICRC is that it is not required to make its findings public. That problem was highlighted when a confidential report about the treatment of detainees at Gitmo was leaked in 2004. So, while O'Connor says he can be assured by ICRC reports, we have no way of knowing about the real circumstances facing detainees who are handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian troops. O'Connor also added that he wasn't aware of any reports back from the ICRC about the detainees who have been handed over to Afghan authorities but he added that the ICRC is "quite pleased" with what the Canadian forces do. So, which is it, O'Connor? Is the ICRC reporting to you or isn't it?

Furthermore, O'Connor seems to be blissfully unaware of what the Canada-Afghanistan agreement says:

The Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that detainees will not be tortured by Afghan forces. Canadian officials are not given the right to monitor detainees after they have been transferred. And although the agreement anticipates that detainees first held by Canada may be moved onwards to the custody of a third country it fails to provide safeguards to ensure they will not be subject to torture or even execution. The previous practice by Canadian Forces of transferring detainees directly to United States forces led to serious human rights violations in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The clear possibility of further transfer of detainees to United States custody remains under the current agreement...

In addition, Afghanistan's human rights organization was only brought into the picture last week when a secret agreement was signed after the news of the alleged abuse of the 3 detainees was splashed all over the front pages and following Amnesty International's call for a judicial review, although O'Connor said on Question Period that this agreement had been in the works since June 2006. That's hardly comforting. Why would it have taken so long to process such a straightforward agreement with a body concerned about human rights?

This just doesn't add up and Canadians, along with those in Afghanistan who are being tranferred over to the authorities there, deserve far more than this continual deception being fostered by this defence minister. I have a feeling that once these 4 investigations into what happened to these Afghan detainees wrap up, O'Connor won't come out smelling like the rose he seems to think he is.