Tagged: John Baird
The Globe and Mail newsroom steps up
Several Globe and Mail reporters who looked looked at the leaked Colvin emails that fueled Christie Blatchford’s recent philippics against the diplomat came up with a very different picture. To begin, here’s Paul Koring:
The Harper government has blacked out large sections of relevant files handed over to the independent inquiry probing allegations of transfer to torture of detainees in Afghanistan, despite the fact that its investigators have the highest levels of national security clearance.
The heavily redacted documents… underscore the sweeping nature of the government’s efforts to keep the documentary record from the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is attempting to conduct an inquiry into allegations that Canada knowingly transferred prisoners to likely torturers in Afghanistan…
“I’m not sure ‘cover-up’ is the right word but someone is going to considerable lengths not to disclose what was known,” said Stuart Hendin, an expert in the law of war and international-rights issues…
“It’s almost impossible for any independent authority to conduct a meaningful inquiry” with documents rendered so unreadable, Mr. Hendin added. “It all suggests someone knew there were issues.”
Koring also offers a useful reminder:
Transfer to torture is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. It is also outlawed by international convention.
The whole article is must-read material.
Meanwhile, the Globe’s Campbell Clark reviews the evidence and finds three points of agreement…
- The government knew that abuses and torture took place in Afghan jails when the Canadian mission in Kandahar began in December of 2005.S
- Sometime in 2006, it became clear that detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers were not being properly tracked and monitored, meaning that Canadian officials could not know if they were being abused or tortured.
- Once Ottawa changed the transfer arrangements in May, 2007, serious allegations of torture of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers came to light. Colvin warned that the reports appeared credible; the generals and senior diplomat David Mulroney said they stopped transfers several times because of serious allegations.
…and one unanswered question:
- Why the government take so long to change the transfer arrangements?
Finally, the Globe’s Jane Taber has two blog posts (here and here) cataloging the Harper Government’s resort to jingoism in their efforts to thwart any inquiry into diplomat Richard Colvin’s testimony that senior Canadian military and foreign affairs officials ignored warnings that low-level prisoners we were turning over to Afghan security officials were likely being tortured.
Stephen Harper’s Tories wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag in Question Period today, aggressively accusing the Liberals of being anti-soldier, anti-athlete and by default, anti-Canadian.
“When will they stop attacking these men and women who are heroes,” demanded Transport Minister John Baird, dodging a question from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.
Are the Harper forces backpedaling on torture?
The Star’s Tonda McCharles reports that the Conservatives are changing tack in the torture scandal.
“It is our understanding that other current and former DFAIT employees will be testifying before the Parliamentary Committee. Their testimony will provide important context and information about this issue.”
…The comments came hours after Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted in Halifax Friday that the government’s attacks on Colvin’s credibility weren’t “personal.”
The federal government changed tack late Friday in response to allegations made by Richard Colvin, shifting to a wait-and-see approach and downplaying efforts to discredit the foreign service officer who says he warned Canada was violating its international obligations to avoid handing Afghan detainees over to certain torture.
Jamie Christoff, a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs, released a statement cautioning that the full story has not yet been heard, despite Colvin’s bombshell testimony to a parliamentary committee, and the government would willingly participate in the parliamentary inquiry.
“It is important to let the Parliamentary Committee process unfold and to consider and weigh the testimony of subsequent witnesses before drawing any conclusions about how events in Afghanistan may have unfolded in 2006 and 2007,” Christoff said.
If it is the start of a big backdown, not everyone is on message:
Yet again Friday, Transport Minister John Baird said Colvin’s allegations “are nothing short of hearsay, sometimes second- or even third-hand information, or worse yet, information that came directly from the Taliban.”
Paving the way for Tories — feedback (cont.)
The anonymous senior official inside Transport Canada who responded to contrarian‘s revelation that the Harper Government steered Infrastructure Stimulus Plan paving projects to federal Tory ridings in Nova Scotia, responds to reader feedback:
What your readers may not know is that senior bureaucrats are moved at the behest of the Clerk of the Privy Council and approved by the Prime Minister — a subtle but important distinction. They (we) are not Liberal appointees any more than the current crop are Conservative appointees. When the Liberals were in power, they were convinced that some deputies were closeted Conservatives (as many were/are). It doesn’t matter. The job of the professional public servant is to give your minister the best possible advice, and then execute whatever they decide — and that may often be contrary to your advice. And this is what we do.
The problem with Baird and his minions is that they are ignoring the process in place to determine where the money should go — a process predicated by previous political scandals. The stink that is going to waft out of the “stimulus” project should make the Libs’ previous troubles seem minor in comparison.
A caution: Anonymous complaints should always be viewed skeptically. If our correspondent is indeed a senior federal Transport official, he or she has a credible reason for requesting anonymity: certain dismissal if unmasked. But that doesn’t prove she has no axe to grind, is telling the truth, or even holds the position she claims to. On balance, though, contrarian thinks the views expressed merit consideration.
Paving the way for Tories – feedback (cont.)
Several readers argue there’s nothing wrong with the Harper Tories steering infrastructure money to their own ridings, or pushing out deputy ministers who object, because (1) the money will be spent anyway, (2) the Liberals did it too, and (3) most senior civil servants are Liberal appointees. After the jump, a spirited response from longtime gadfly and former Dartmouth City Councillor Colin May, but first, contrarian reader Wayne Fiander weighs in:
Since you went to great trouble to note [ousted Deputy Transport Minister Louis] Ranger’s expertise, you should have also informed your readers that Mr. Ranger “in the mid 90′s, took a two year assignment with the Privy Council Office. He then returned to Transport Canada as Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and was appointed Associate Deputy Minister of Transport in 2001″ and was appointed DM at Transport Canada in 2002. His connection to the Chretien Liberals is quite deep and therefore sheds the full light on his obviously political comments.
Good point. I should have noted that. But the implication that a two-year stint in the PCO 15 years ago justifies Ranger’s firing is bogus. The Harper crowd used public money for partisan purposes. That’s corrupt. Full stop. Getting rid of qualified civil servants who raise objections to this corruption is of a piece with that. Read more »
