20 Nov Colvin torture testimony – Friday wrapup

Here is a roundup of clips and comments on the Harper Conservatives’ slagging of Richard Colvin, who was a respected career diplomat until his tried to warn the Harper administration about Canadian complicity in Afghan torture.

First, a scrum in which Defense Minister Peter MacKay calls Colvin a patsy for the Taliban before running away under tough questions from Parliament Hill reporters:

MacKay’s predecessor as Defense minister, Gordon O’Connor, “was never briefed on any of this.”

Diplomat turned blogger Norman Specter, writing in the Globe and Mail:

[I]t’s important to remember that this is not the first time serious allegations have been made against members of the Canadian Forces. In fact, in the so-called Somalia affair of 1993, the allegations were more serious; namely, that Canadian soldiers themselves had beaten and shot Somali civilians in the back, and that they were directly responsible for the death of Shidane Arone. Nor, is it the first time that a cover up by very senior people has been alleged. In fact, in that latter case, it could be said that the cover-up reached the highest levels of government after Jean Chrétien shut down the Commission of Inquiry before it could complete its hearings.

There’s still much that we don’t know after hearing Mr. Colvin’s allegations. For example, though names of some very senior officials were mentioned, we haven’t heard their side of the story; nor do we know whether the cover-up extended to the political level. If it did, we don’t know when/whether the Prime Minister was informed, and, if he wasn’t informed, why not. Nor do we know why Mr. Colvin did not blow the whistle earlier, while the torture was still taking place and he was being rebuffed by very senior officials. None of these questions is likely to be answered without taking testimony under oath in a public inquiry, which is what the opposition parties should now be pushing for.

—

Update In replying to opposition demands for a public inquiry during Question Period, Defence Minister Peter MacKay attempted to poke holes in Richard Colvin’s “unsubstantiated” testimony. And he stressed the need for due process.

In fact, there could be no better arguments for holding a public inquiry.

Also in the Globe, Rick Salutin notes “the odd absence from the debate of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.”

It’s true his own writing on torture led to charges he was ready to accept versions of it, and he might like to avoid the predictable Tory gibes. But in that case, he may as well resign altogether.

Salutin thinks the real damage of the torture revelations lies not in the Harper Conservatives’ refusal to call in inquiry, or even in “Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s loutish claims that critics were accepting the word of ‘the Taliban,’ by which he seems to mean prisoners turned over.”

The truly sickening part is that it provides one more proof, a uniquely Canadian one, that the war on terror has become the chief incubator of terror, and recruitment for it, post-9/11.

In this respect, it isn’t crucial what is proven about Richard Colvin’s accusations, though it’s hard to imagine what reason he had for lying about any of it, especially his attempts to convey the truth and being told to shut up. The story is out there: A Canadian official says our soldiers handed over Afghans, innocent or not, for what they knew would be torture. It’s like painting a fresh bull’s eye on the backs of our troops, in addition to the ones already on them. Whatever good may have been accomplished by helping to build a school or road is counteracted. To the extent the charges are true, innocent people who have been tortured get out with a new grudge against Canadians, and pass that on to their families and communities.

Writing in the National Post, columnist Don Martin calls it “an organized smackdown rarely seen in Ottawa.”

[H]is testimony [was] very, very dangerous — and that’s why the Conservatives have launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Colvin.

But it faces a big problem. Every action by this government to date has only enhanced the diplomat’s credibility.

Mr. Colvin was promoted to the Washington job under a Conservative reign after 16 years of unblemished duty in hotspots like Sri Lanka, Russia, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. While serving in Kandahar, he was told his insights were too sensitive to be put in writing, he says. His emails have been declared off limits on national security grounds. And he’s been told to shut up on this file or risk being charged under the Canada Evidence Act.

Those actions all speak to the significance and sensitivity of his input, not the ramblings of a rogue diplomat spreading stories from his imagination.

The government’s main concern seems to be that Mr. Colvin failed to observe torture first-hand. But it’s not like Afghans invite foreigners into their jails to witness guards delivering a hard beating on fresh prisoners.

Canadian officials never witnessed Maher Arar being brutally cable-whipped in a Syrian jail, but they believed him enough for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to apologize and cut him an $11.5-million compensation cheque.

Global’s Kevin Newman and Jacques Bourbeau hone in on the key flaw in the Harper Government’s attempts to undermine Colvin: If he is a patsy for the Taliban, why is he the administration’s number two man in Washington — a position the Harper Conservatives appointed him to? (A 17-sec. ad precedes the clip.)

The Globe and Mail’s Graeme Smith, who has done good work on this story, speaks with CTV News here.