Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian War Crimes in Afghanistan

A lengthy, well-documented and detailed piece by Michael Keefer, professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario, on the complicity of Harper and his minions in Afghan detainee transfer to certain torture, deliberate blocking of information at the highest levels in the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government and outright lies from Harper's government when questioned by news and parliamentary committees about it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian War Crimes in Afghanistan

"...[A]ccording to law professor Amir Attaran, who has seen uncensored versions of the documents that the Harper government has so strenuously resisted sharing with Parliament, the paper trail is thoroughly incriminating. In March 2010 Attiran told CBC News: “If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees […]. There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That’s what’s in these documents, and that’s why the government is covering up as hard as it can.”

This question hasn't even come up in this election campaign except by Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party (NDP) whose position all along has been against the war and Canada's part in it. For his efforts, his was given the name "Taliban Jack" by Harper Conservatives and their supporters.

Michael Keefer's conclusion:

"The clear pattern of intentionality revealed in the words and actions of senior Canadian government bureaucrats and senior military officers is both embarrassing (these people actually believe, despite copious evidence to the contrary, that torture produces real ‘intelligence’) and also a scandalous offence against the rule of law.

More scandalous still is the evidence that these people were acting on directives from Stephen Harper—that Harper knew perfectly well that the Afghan puppet-state tortures the prisoners handed over to it by the Canadian Forces, but nonetheless permitted the continuation of this system, and that he actually took charge of the program of lying about it. "

Murray Dobbin: Canada in Afghanistan - the Big Lie

Our country's leaders are lying to themselves, to us and to the rest of the world. They implicate us in their lies, so, as Canadians, we become part of the big lie. If we refuse to swallow the lies or go along with them, we are called un-Canadian, unpatriotic or lovers of terrorists or terrorism. Just because lots of people sign on to the Big Lie doesn't make it true. Just because leaders of "democratic" governments skate over, ignore or refuse to see the illegality of their actions, it does not make them legal.

I always imagine Murray Dobbin standing on a mountaintop during a storm, calling out to Canadians to warn them of the danger they face - and very few can be bothered to listen.

Canada in Afghanistan - the Big Lie

Our tragic and pathetic Afghanistan adventure is a dramatic commentary on the state of Canadian politics and democracy. Despite all the evidence that continuing to stay in this benighted country is worse than pointless, despite the fact that the majority of Canadians want to get out sooner rather than later and despite the fact that even Stephen Harper recognizes that the Karzai regimen is one of the most repugnant and corrupt Canadians have ever been asked to support we are unable as a nation to extricate ourselves from this deadly mess.

In spite of all the blathering about the common sense of Canadians, politicians, except for New Democratic leader Jack Layton, who has never supported and does not support the Big Lie, do not listen to us. We are expected to pay up and shut up.

And our country is being ruined.

The Afghan war/occupation not only further corrupts and destroys Afghanistan; it corrupts Canadian politics by obliging everyone to be involved in a Big Lie. We have to lie about everything: the likelihood of improvement, the objectives of our partner, the US; the building of democracy, the role of oil and gas pipelines, the liberation of women, Afghanis’ attitude towards Canadian soldiers, our commitment to the Geneva Convention, and the story we tell Canadian soldiers about why they are there. Nothing but lies and everyone one of them corrosive of our political culture and international image.

Whistleblowers, whether they be diplomats like Richard Colvin, translators like Ahmadshah Malgarai, or members of JTF2, who report wrongdoing by members of the Canadian Armed Forces are ignored, bullied, or have their integrity or their motives questioned.

The legal maxim, "Cui bono?" or "Who benefited?" should indicate that a diplomat, translator or member of the armed forces is unlikely to advance his career if he exposes the wrongdoing of the government or military brass. Clearly the bureaucracies have much to lose if the truth is told and everything to gain if it is simply swept under the rug.

Dishonourable wars – and most are – dishonour everyone involved and make liars out of the most senior people justifying the conflict. This war is incredibly destructive not only of the country being attacked and occupied but it corrodes every Canadian institution involved: the military, the civil service, Parliament, political leaders, the media and those in academia recruited to supply justification for an unjustifiable war.

Canada and the F-35's

From the wonderful Dr. Neil Kitson and his blog Canadians in Afghanistan

Canada's Purchase of the F-35 explained

They also did a wonderful explanation of the subprime mortages.

Important documents on Afghan detainees missing

A report from the Hill Times today says that members of parliament are doubtful they will see all the documents relating to the Afghan detainee transfers and subsequent treatment at the hands of the ANP and the Afghan army. The Department of National Defence and the military appear to have "lost" them. Is this going to be Somalia all over again?

Opposition MPs are wary about the Defence Department's commitment to produce all documents on detainee transfers in Afghanistan following the Army's inexplicable failure to locate a month's worth of crucial logs and reports for an internal inquiry into detainee beating at the hands of Afghan police in 2006.

...[M]Ps say the loss of documents surrounding the 2006 incident raises comparisons to Defence Department attempts to hide and destroy documents demanded by a commission of inquiry into the beating death of a Somali civilian by Canadian troops in 1993.

Are Stephen Harper and others in the relevant groups just trying to distract and delay until they can manufacture another cause for an election and deep six the investigation? The level of secrecy is astounding. The excuse of national security seems more than a little artificial.

Neil Kitson on his blog Canadians in Afghanistan, has pointed out the conflict of interest if either Gordon O'Connor (former MND) or Peter MacKay (present one) was included on the "secret" panel:

In the nomination of of a new committee to review such documents, Gordon O'Connor, and Peter MacKay, should now be excluded by conflict of interest. Mr. O'Connor was Minister of National Defence during some of the most important periods in the transfers now under scrutiny, and he was succeeded by Mr. MacKay. Participation by either in the forthcoming review of documents would obviously put them in the impossible and illegal position of participating in Parliament's investigation of their own decisions.

Getting the job done in Afghanistan

When I was a child with two younger siblings, my parents used to refer to the more "solid" aspect of toilet training as "doing a job". Ever since then, any variation on that phrase when used by anyone brings that bodily function to mind.

Here's Obama "getting the job done in Afghanistan" and self-confessed war criminal Condoleezza Rice urging Canadians on to "finish the job" in Afghanistan...way back in 2006 when she graced Canada with her presence.
-----
Getting the job done in Afghanistan

U.S. strikes in Afghanistan kill 100, mostly civilians

Although the Obama administration doesn't appear to possess the cojones to actually prosecute the torturers and torture enablers, at least some Stanford students and alumni have the guts to ask the tough questions.

When Condoleezza Rice came to Canada on the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, she visited Halifax, one of the many airports in Canada that allowed American planes to land after the NYC and Washington DC hijackings. None were allowed to land at U.S. airports. (I've often wondered if the situation had been reversed and Canadian planes had asked to land in the U.S. whether they would have been received with such welcome. Three guesses on the answer to that one, and the first two don't count.)

There was speculation that Peter MacKay, the defense minister, and Condi were "an item". (He really, really likes powerful women. His former girlfriend was Belinda Stronach, a Conservative MP and the gazillionaire daughter of the car parts magnate Frank Stronach. She dumped him and crossed the floor to join the Liberals after she found out just what the neo-Con Harperites were up to).

The thought of Petey and Condi canoodling is enough to make most people lose their breakfast. Just cast your mind back to those heady days when the relations between the Canadian Harperites and the Bush Cabal were supposedly warming up...as if this were a good thing.

So, here's a video of the Peter and Condi show in Halifax.

Don't watch this unless you have a bucket handy.

Catch the last sentence from Rice, extolling the neverending war in Afghanistan.

"Maybe it won't come back to haunt me or Peter, 'cos we will be gone, but it may come back to haunt our successors and their successors. You have to finish the job when you have a chance."

Peter and Condi sitting in a tree (from 2006)

I hope something comes back to haunt you, Condi.