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.

Secrecy - the first refuge of incompetents

What is Stephen Harper covering up when he cites National Security and the security of the "troops" as reasons for not disclosing relevant information regarding transfer and subsequent torture of Afghan detainees?

Now, if that's not enough to make a person lose their last meal...

Scott Horton, referring to the subpoena of a NY Times reporter and author who disclosed CIA incompetents (and incompetence) in dealing with Iran refers to a the report of the Commission on Government Security, the Committee on Government Operations of the [U.S.] House of Representatives, 1960 Report and the place of secrecy in a democracy:

"Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people."

 Horton goes on to say that

"... But mistakes that are kept secret are more likely to be repeated, and those who commit them are more likely to advance to positions in which they can do more costly damage. ...[T]he public’s security was in this case plainly served by disclosure, and the prosecution that is apparently being mounted is another gallant defense of the government’s right to keep its inept conduct secret not from foreign enemies but from the American public. Such steps make us dumber, weaker, and less safe."

Same goes here. Incompetents in high places is not a recipe for success.

Sliding towards dictatorship

It looks like Duncan Cameron doesn't think Peter Milliken, speaker of the house, will rule against the Harper regime. It will more likely be a slap on the wrist and presto! the basis of our government has changed.

Parliamentary supremacy and the Speaker's corner
by Duncan Cameron at rabble.ca

"Most people expect Speaker Peter Milliken, a Liberal, to sidestep the issue of parliamentary supremacy; he may issue a rebuke to the Harper government, but acknowledge the legitimacy of cabinet ministers making their own secrecy determinations."

I'd love to see him rule that the Harperite stance is illegitimate, but I fear he won't. But will they get away with this?

"The Conservatives have breached international law by handing over of Afghan detainees to be tortured, and should be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention, irrespective of the Speaker's ruling. We do not need additional proof or "secret" documents in order to arrive at that conclusion. But we do need to face the issue of disregard for parliament raised by the Harper government on a daily basis, irrespective of any crimes it has committed."

And what of the whistleblower Richard Colvin, one the people supposedly given "real protection" by Harper and his Accountability Act?

"Richard Colvin is the Canadian diplomat who raised the issue of torture inside the government. He was called to testify before a parliamentary committee on what he knew, and when he knew it. While making his testimony, on orders of the Conservatives, he was denied access to his own emails.

A public servant called as a witness before a parliamentary committee and unable to access his own work while testifying? Even George Orwell did not imagine tyranny being that imaginative. Every Conservative MP deserves to be defeated in the next election."

So, "real protection" consists of piling on Colvin as soon as he opens his mouth, virtually calling him a liar, misrepresenting his work, and then taking cover behind a pile of redacted documents as high as the Berlin Wall?

I feel a major depression coming on...again.

Secrecy - the first refuge of incompetents

Here are a few words to the HarperCons while they attempt to cover up the "who knew what and when" of Afghan detainees captured by Canadian soldiers and handed over to Afghan authorities, even after the government had been warned by the Red Cross and their own diplomats in Afghanistan that they would be almost certainly subjected to torture.

They have repeatedly denied knowing anything, then attempted to hide behind the Canadian military or the previous government.

This from Scott Horton, constitutional law expert who writes a blog titled No Comment for Harper's (no connection to Stephen Harper, not at all).

Scott Horton, March 19th, Harper's, No Comment

The Pentagon loses a Skirmish with WikiLeaks

On the subject of secrecy:

In 1960, a congressional committee, recognizing the need to rein in the extravagant claims of secrecy that were thriving in the Department of Defense and intelligence community, observed that

Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people.

I don't suppose the Harper regime is listening, though. They never do.