Civil liberties lawyer to opposition: stop politicizing detainee abuse
For many Canadians, the ongoing controversy surrounding the treatment of Afghan detainees has been an irritating issue.
It shouldn't be said that there's no cause for any outrage. Proper-thinking Canadians of all political stripes recognize that torture is a barbarous act, and aren't prepared to tolerate it.
But by the same token, the issue -- alleging that Afghan detainees transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian soldiers were later tortured -- has, in many senses, proven to be utterly insipid.
Canada's opposition parties -- and various left-wing commentators and bloggers -- have attempted to use the issue to tar the Conservative government, and accuse them of being guilty of war crimes.
But to those Canadians who have seen this issue for what it really is, the matter at hand is utterly, crystal clear. This isn't really an issue about what Canadian soldiers have done, it's about what another country's soldiers have done.
It actually makes the drive to use the issue to portray Prime Minister Stephen Harper as George W Bush seem even more comical.
Bush was declared to be a war criminal because he had authorized the US military to use "coercive interrogation techniques" (torture) -- so, in point of fact, George W Bush is a war criminal.
But in the case of Stephen Harper, he's accused of war crimes because the soldiers of another country tortured detainees, after Canadian soldiers had transferred them under an agreement negotiated by his governmental predecessor.
In the rush to paint Stephen Harper as George W Bush, even as it pertains to torture, the best these people can do is to establish Harper as Bush-tres-lite.
But it's against the partisan abuse of the issue that Paul Champ, a lawyer for Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, has entered the fray. And he has a message for these people:
Stop politicizing the issue.
“My clients believe this is an issue that should be totally depoliticized,” Champ recently insisted, and noted that it's actually the lack of a standing military policy on detainee handling that is at the heart of this issue.
Champ notes that part of what led to this sorry state of affairs is a poor approach to the issue of detainee treatment in the first place, one that waited for proof as opposed to assessing risk.
“Basically [the politicians] are saying they want absolute proof in some way that someone has been tortured when it should be about what is the risk of torture,” Champ continued. “We think this has broader implications, not simply for the Afghan theatre but a judicial inquiry could provide guidance to the military for any future deployments that we’re engaged in.”
Champ will testify before a hastily-called meeting of Canada's special committee on the mission in Afghanistan, and plans to tell opposition MPs to stop trying to profit politically off the matter.
Paul Champ's stand on the matter is long overdue. So long as Canada's opposition parties continue to find any way to use this matter as a political club against the government, many of the answers will continue to be elusive.
Needless to say, there is no incentive for the government to help uncover facts that will unfairly be used to attack it. De-politicizing the issue will go a long way toward solving that problem.
Great post. I don't see the opposition dropping this issue as long as the media keep rehashing it.
ReplyDeleteRebuttal to your comments...
ReplyDeletehttp://dodocanspell.blogspot.com/2009/12/calling-profwaldo-where-arrre-youuuu.html
What amazes me more than anything is the arrogance of the Liberal Party on this matter.
ReplyDelete"Hey, I know we fucked this whole thing up in the first place, and you cleaned up our mess, but we're going to use that to attack you... because we can."
I think Canadians need an opportunity to go back to the polls and punish this disingenuous political party again, as many times as necessary before they learn that they can't get away with this kind of nonsense.
You are misinterpreting Champs statement with your comment:
ReplyDelete"Champ notes that part of what led to this sorry state of affairs is a poor approach to the issue of detainee treatment in the first place, one that waited for proof as opposed to assessing risk."
If you re-read the news article, Champ is clearly indicating that you cannot transfer a detainee if there is a risk of torture. Waiting for proof of torture is unacceptable. The latter approach is the approach of the current government.
Also, while I am not a lawyer, enough people have recently described the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions. The Convention requires that a "prisoner", now rebranded as a "detainee", cannot be transferred to a third party if there is a reasonable possibility that the detainee will be abused. The Convention also require that the transfering power keep track of any transferred detainees. The current Canadian Government appears to be mandating this transfer and appears to be be delaying notification of parties such as ISAF and ICRC regarding these transfers.
A independent commission that is provided all the information it requests and is provided the time and authority to complete a full inquiry would resolve these questions. The current government appears unwilling to pursue this course and is the group that is politicizing this serious issue.
Still sore from the spaking you received earlier today, Waldo?
ReplyDeleteLet's take a good close look at what Champ had to say:
"Basically [the politicians] are saying they want absolute proof in some way that someone has been tortured when it should be about what is the risk of torture,” Champ continued. “We think this has broader implications, not simply for the Afghan theatre but a judicial inquiry could provide guidance to the military for any future deployments that we’re engaged in."
And let's compare this, once again, to my treatment of this comment:
"Champ notes that part of what led to this sorry state of affairs is a poor approach to the issue of detainee treatment in the first place, one that waited for proof as opposed to assessing risk."
I assume you can read. It must be your comprehension that is lacking.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteThe politicians that apparently want proof of torture before acting are the ones that are currently in power and attempting to hide all possible evidence and forcibly stop all appropriate and legitimate inquiries. The opposition parties are saying that the Geneva Conventions are the practices that we should follow as opposed to what we are doing today. While I have not read the detainee transfer agreements, I suspect that in the absence of an oversight, they were drafted so that if they were followed, the Geneva Convention requirements would be satisfied. I believe that Mr. Champ would agree with this interpretation of his statements.
Before you start accusing me of attacking the armed forces, from what I have read to date, they appear to have acted responsibly and followed the chain of command as they are REQUIRED to do. I believe it is the politicians at the top of the chain of command that have violated the intent, and perhaps the legal requirements, of the Geneva Conventions.
Waldo
Interestingly, Waldo, the largest of those Opposition parties were the ones who negotiated the prison transfer agreement in question -- you know, the one with no provisions for taking a prisoner back after allegations of abuse.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the Liberal Party, too, , has based its agreements off this admittedly poor approach.
It was the Conservative Party who cleaned up the mess in the first place, and now the Liberal Party -- along with a collection of useful idiots from the Bloc Quebecois and NDP -- are trying to cover their tracks.
Last but not least let's not forget that this entire affair is about what another country's personell have been doing.
It's a non-story. Give it a rest.