Afghan: No NATO Run Prisons

Human rights organizations and the media have written about the plight of Afghan detainees turned over by NATO forces, such as Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, to Afghan prisons where they face being tortured.

From the Saturday, November 17, 2007, World section of the Toronto Star, page AA2, an article about the dismissal of a possible solution to this problem:

GENERAL RULES OUT NATO-RUN PRISON
Remarks follow claims of abuse in Afghan jails

Allan Woods
Ottawa - Setting up separate NATO-run jails to hold battlefield detainees who might otherwise be tortured is out of the question, the alliance's military chief says.

Gen. Ray Henault, the Canadian chair of NATO's military committee, said creating detention facilities that are run by the International Security Assistance Force, would put too much demand on the already difficult Afghanistan mission and undermine the Afghan government, which has responsibility for its own penal system.

"We consider this to be something done in concert with international standards. That's the way we intend to continue dong business," Henault said.

The Canadian policy of transferring detainees to Afghan prisons is being challenged in court by Amnesty International, which is seeking an end to all handovers until the country's jails are free of abuse.

The federal government released thousands of pages of files this week showing Canadian officials have been aware of the deplorable state of Afghanistan's prisons for some time, and are currently investigating seven allegations that Canadian detainees were tortured in Afghan custody.

The most recent allegation came to light in the first week of November and was verified by local authorities who are now deciding whether to lay criminal charges.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre said the documents prove "Canada has violated the Geneva Convention" and "must stop the transfers, bring back the prisoners and respect this convention."

Henault rejected accusations there is "systematic" torture in Afghan jails, or at the hands of its secret police, and said he is not aware of any individual cases of abuse.

"But it would probably be inappropriate for me to say that there is nothing like that that ever happens in Afghanistan."

An aide to Henault added that probes of torture allegations are "going to put the pressure where it needs to be, which is on the Afghan government." Indeed, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has already warned the country's police against using physical abuse and has launched an inquiry into torture allegations.

In the meantime, Henault said responsibility for improving the country's prisons falls to organizations like the Red Cross. Afghanistan's human rights body and the government, not NATO.

Canada's "Moral" Behaviour: Only When It Suits Harper & Washington

From the Sunday, November 18, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A8, is an article about Prime Minister's Harpers selectively moral foreign policies.

HARPER'S 'SELECTIVE' MORALS BAD NEWS FOR DESERTERS

Thomas Walkom

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the refugee appeals of two U.S. Army deserters should come as no surprise.

Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey do not qualify as refugees under the United Nations definition used here. They are not fleeing political persecution; they do not face torture. They are merely trying to escape what they - and most Canadians - see as an unjust Iraq war.

This does not mean that the pair should be sent home to face court martial. Quite the reverse. If Canada's federal government had the inclination to face down Washington just a bit, both men - who almost certainly qualify for permanent resident status - would be welcomed, not as refugees but as landed immigrants. That's how Canada treated U.S. draft dodgers and deserters from the Vietnam War. And it worked out fine.

However, it is most unlikely that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will take this path.

True, he has promised to deal with foreign affairs "on moral grounds." But his is a selective form of morality. Harper is willing to go to bat against countries that the U.S. criticizes - like China. But he is not willing to take on those that President George W. Bush deems friends. And he is certainly not willing to take on Washington itself.

Nowhere is this double standard more apparent than in the government's approach to Canadian citizens detained abroad.

Harper has been outspoken in his defence of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian tried and convicted in China earlier this year on charges of terrorism.

Harper has raised Celil's case personally with the Chinese leadership. In July, then foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay rebuked China again, saying that "due process for this Canadian citizen was not followed and his rights were not respected."

Compare this to Ottawa's tepid response in the case of another Canadian, Bashir Makhtal, who has been languishing for months in an Ethiopian jail. Makhtal was seized at the Kenyan border last December as he tried to escape Somalia's latest bout of mayhem and handed over illegally - to the Ethiopian army. While he hasn't been formally charged with anything, it seems that Ethiopia suspects him of connections to a separatist group it regards as terrorist.

Yet from Harper, there has been radio silence. The reason? Ethiopia is America's proxy in the Horn of Africa. Its invasion of Somalia to depose an Islamic government (the invasion that caused Makhtal to flee) was sanctioned and militarily supported by Washington.

In this context, it seems, the Canadian government finds a mere Canadian citizen expendable.

But nowhere is the double standard more apparent than in the case of Omar Khadr, another Canadian imprisoned abroad on charges of terrorism. Khadr faces trial in a setting so unfair that it makes the Chinese justice system look reasonable.

He can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence and statements obtained under torture. In the unlikely event that he is acquitted, his captors have reserved the right to keep him in jail anyway.

Yet Ottawa insists that the process if fair. That's because Khadr's human rights are being abused not by Beijing but Washington. And this government does not wish to irritate Washington.

For the two U.S. deserters, none of this is good news. Their ability to remain in Canada depends on the federal government's willingness to accommodate U.S. war resisters.

Alas, there is little likelihood of this. This government won't protect even its own citizens without U.S. clearance. It is unlikely to help Americans trying to escape Bush's wars.

Thomas Walkom's, column appears Thursday and Sunday.

Accomplices to Torture: Stop the Transfer of Detainees

From the Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Toronto Star, Ideas section, page AA8, an article about Amnesty International's report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other countries:

Canada's Shame
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES IS COMPLICITY IN TORTURE

Michael Byers

The world's most respected human rights organization has just accused this country of complicity in torture. Canadians should hang their heads in shame.

Yesterday, the London-based International secretariat of Amnesty International released a 38-page report into detainee transfers conducted by Canada and other members of the International security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The report is based upon Amnesty International's own field research, as well as on-the-ground reports from other reputable human rights and media organizations.

Back in December 2005, Canada and Afghanistan concluded an "arrangement" on detainee transfers that lacked basic verification mechanisms, such as the right for Canadian officials to visit transferred detainees. Last May, under the threat of a federal court injunction, the Canadian government negotiated an improved arrangement.

But the new arrangement has failed to work. According to Amnesty International, transferred detainees remain "at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment."

The human rights organization cites two reports from the UN secretary general, the most recent from just two months ago, pointing to the use of torture in a "significant number of cases." It collates a number of media reports to the same effect, as well as statements from the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. It highlights the admission, by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade last summer, that Canadian officials had received at least six first-hand reports of torture.

Amnesty International expresses particular concern about Afghanistan's notorious National Directorate of Security (NDS), the secret policy who end up holding most of the transferred detainees.

It writes that it has "received repeated reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by the NDS from alleged victims and their relatives, as well as a range of organizations including UN agencies."

One alleged victim claimed to have been taken to a room in the NDS compound in Kandahar where "the walls were covered with blood." There, he was hung from a hook on the ceiling and repeatedly beaten into unconsciousness.

As Amnesty International explains, Canada's current reliance on occasional verification visits is misplaced. Monitoring "is a technique to detect torture only after it happens, and cannot substitute for prior precautions that prevent torture from happening in the first place."

The human rights organization also criticizes Canada for downplaying the number of transfers that occur. It suggests that as many as 200 detainees may have been moved from Canadian custody, not including the many immediate transfers that take place during joint Canada-Afghan military operations.

And it expresses concerns that the Canadian government's investigation into abuse claims early this year may have been neither "competent" nor "impartial."

Amnesty International then usefully summarizes the applicable law. It points out that torture is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, "may also constitute a crime against humanity or a war crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court," and is absolutely prohibited under international human rights law.

As part of this absolute prohibition, "states must never expel, return or extradite a person to a country where they risk torture or other ill-treatment."

More specifically, under the UN Convention Against Torture, countries may never transfer a person to a situation "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be tortured." Any country that does so is, under universally accepted rules of "state responsibility," is no less culpable than the country directly engaged in the abuse.

An Amnesty International explains, the situation is analogous to a country which knowingly releases detainees in a minefield while claiming that their safety is no longer its responsibility.

The report concludes by calling - quite reasonably - for a temporary moratorium on the transfer of detainees. The moratorium would allow for their rights to be protected while a comprehensive effort was made to reform the Afghan detention system. Such reforms could include "placing staff and trainers within Afghan detention facilities in order to monitor and train Afghan detention officials."

Yesterday, the Canadian Department of National Defense responded to the Amnesty International report by stating that "Afghanistan is a sovereign country with a constitution that requires the protection of human rights, and which has the responsibility for detention of Afghans."

The response misses the point. Canada is a sovereign country, too. We have our own constitutional and international legal responsibilities that are engaged whenever our soldiers act overseas. And we had, until recently, a strong reputation as a human rights respecting state.

Amnesty International is right. It's time to stop the transfer of detainees.