I was able to watch the first part of David Mulroney's testimony before the parliamentary committee investigating the handling of Afghan detainees earlier today. I was particularly interested in the references to the report by Richard Colvin that was the subject of the post at The Galloping Beaver to which I linked in my own post. Despite the redactions, Mulroney was able to establish that the report would have been written and submitted in the spring of 2007. When he was asked whether or not that report was a credible allegation of torture of the kind that the government has claimed no one had raised, he replied that the prison Colvin was reporting on was in Kabul. Since Canadians were operating in Kandahar and any prisoners they took would have been sent to a local facility, the prisoners Colvin referred to couldn't have been detained by Canadian forces.
In subsequent questioning Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh pointed out that some of the prisoners in that Kabul prison had been transferred there from Kandahar and suggested that Mulroney couldn't be sure that the prisoner described as being whipped by cables and shocked by electricity hadn't been originally detained by Canadians. Mulroney's response was what I'm sure a lawyer would call "non-responsive." He didn't get anywhere near a direct answer and instead began talking about the database of prisoners that was established as part of the "more robust" system that went into effect when the new transfer agreement was signed in May of 2007.
The obvious implication is that prior to that, there was no database and Mulroney, in fact, couldn't be sure that someone detained in Kandahar by Canadians and subsequently transferred to Kabul wasn't one of the abused Afghans mentioned in Colvin's report. I didn't see the end of the proceeding but I gather from Kady O'Malley's live blogging of the session that the NDP's Paul Dewar returned to this issue and in the end, Mulroney had to admit that with no monitoring agreement in place prior to May, 2007 he couldn't be sure any detainees originating with Canadian forces hadn't been abused.
I spent three paragraphs on that to make it clear that in some ways, Mulroney wasn't entirely forthcoming. He answered some questions quite directly but at other times he obviously changed the subject when he could get away with it. And I raise the whole question because of Peter MacKay.
The standard of evidence MacKay keeps insisting must be met shouldn't be necessary to prompt action from someone in his position in that context. And the lack of evidence that meets that standard wouldn't necessarily be enough to save him were he to be accused of a war crime. But for the sake of argument ... over and over MacKay has claimed that Richard Colvin hadn't presented any proof that any Afghan detained by Canadian troops was abused by Afghan authorities. But how could Colvin do that? This isn't the only report we've had that during 2006 and early 2007 Canadian record keeping was somewhere between poor and non-existent but this settles the immediate question. Colvin might have spoken to an Afghan who had been detained by Canadians and subsequently abused and he wouldn't know it or be able to prove it because we simply weren't keeping track and couldn't identify those we had detained. Short of leaving his post to question every Canadian serving at the time to see if he could trace the origins of those detainees mentioned in his report, Colvin couldn't possibly have met the standard that's been set for him retroactively and that's because of Canada's poor records. Peter MacKay's claim means nothing.
I'm sure you're as shocked as I am.
Did you get a load of MacKay's "I have no idea" performance on the CBC site? I am still shocked by it and I am a really cynical bastard.
Greg, I was watching at the moment when the email notification of your comment came in. For those who don't know what we're talking about, Peter MacKay was asked how two retired generals who are now civilians were able to access classified reports for review before their testimony yesterday when the MPs who questioned them aren't allowed to see them. MacKay professed his ignorance but seemed to think the whole thing was quite amusing. The video is here. H/t Scott Tribe.
I think that fair-minded people will be able to grasp that MacKay is putting Colvin (and others) over and over again in a double-bind situation -- as long as the media also grasp that and get the word out.
MacKay's standard of "evidence" is risible, and I was pretty sure of that even before I read Mendes. How many independent observers anywhere have been eye-witnesses to torture, which seems to be one of the sneering demands that Conservative members of the committee are making of any critic?
There's the double-bind of the hopeless tracking system, leading also to the delays in responsible reporting to the ICRC. Oh, and then can Mr Colvin explain why he is the only individual to have spoken out so far? (Actually, he can, or his lawyer can and did, by producing that charming threatening letter that all the witnesses expected before the MPCC received.)
Mr Colvin's testimony, like his memos, is "ludicrous," "not credible," "second-hand," nothing that the generals and the bureaucrats and the government would or should have paid attention to in 2006 ... Except that it is somehow now suddenly a matter of national security.
But Mulroney told the committee that ideas, opinions and strongly held views were "often best first expressed by phone, first expressed."
Deny deny deny. Plausible deniability. No paper trail.
Phone it in. For God's sake, no emails or memos!
MacKay doesn't need a new line of attack. He needs a new job. I hear 7-Eleven is hiring.
To think that Elizabeth May could've been the MP instead of that despicable bastard. And who were those giggling journos? The press gallery needs to be more brazen. Challenge him. Why are you smirking about a matter of public security? Do you think this is some game? People were tortured and your own men were trying to alert you to that fact and this is a war crime. And you are smirking and laughing. Is that really the face you want to show Canadians Mr. Mackay?
Yes, plausible deniability is the goal, but the great thing is, Colvin's actions alone are evidence that chief Cdn. Officials SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about the war crimes being committed under their watch.
You would have to be an idiot to believe that accounts of torture and rape in one prison have nothing to do with the possible conditions of the prisons in your area of the country.
Even if Colvin's witnesses weren't from Kandahar, there was still reason to look at Kandahar's prison system, and there is no evidence that they did.
May the generals got ahold of the secret documents from following Maxim Bernier or Lisa Raitt around until they misplaced them.
{that should've read: "Maybe the generals...")