EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghan Furor Shows We're Slipping Into US Orbit
It was almost enough to revive one's faith in Canada as a functioning democracy, not to mention a member of the civilized world.
After two weeks of unrelenting pressure — led by the media and the opposition parties in Parliament — the Harper government was forced to abandon a deal that made Canada complicit in torture in Afghanistan.
Before we go farther, let's emphasize that the much-improved deal governing the treatment of our detainees in Afghanistan came about despite the sustained and determined efforts of the Harper government to thwart such monitoring of human rights.
For more than a year, the Conservatives had been content to hand over detainees to Afghan custody, despite ample evidence — including from Canadian officials — that Afghanistan routinely tortures those in its custody.
Even after controversy erupted over the situation last month, the Harper government was evasive and unco-operative, dismissing detailed reports of torture as mere "allegations of the Taliban." This dismissive approach was echoed by Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente who made clear that her sympathies lay with Canadian military leaders, not with Afghans who reported being hung upside down and punched so hard their teeth fell out.
"I have deep sympathy for our military leaders," wrote Wente, explaining what she saw as the difficult bind our generals are in. "They can fight a war. Or they can babysit `our detainees' ..."
To Wente, ensuring that our detainees aren't tortured — a requirement of the Geneva Conventions, which Canada has signed — is the equivalent of "babysitting" them.
Then there was our top general, Rick Hillier, whose fingerprints are all over the original deal, and who made light of the furor last week by diligently trying to divert attention onto the flashy arrival of the Stanley Cup and a group of NHL old-timers in Kandahar.
First stop for the hockey celebrities was the local Tim Horton's that Hillier famously brought to Afghanistan. Sadly, it seems Hillier's taste for Canadian traditions doesn't necessarily extend beyond hockey and doughnuts to include respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Surely it doesn't need to be noted that torture is among the lowest forms of human depravity. While it has lost its acceptability in civilized circles in recent centuries, it's made a disturbing revival under U.S. President George W. Bush.
Invoking the atrocities of 9/11 as a justification — as if there were no atrocities on this scale in history — the Bush administration has demonstrated a comfort level with torture that would befit the most brutal medieval king.
If we needed any evidence that Canada was being sucked into this maw of depravity by our involvement in Bush's "war on terror," we've now got it. Indeed, the detainee transfer agreement that Hillier signed with the Afghan government in December 2005 had overtones of Bush's "extraordinary rendition" program, under which terror suspects are handed over to a brutal country for detention and interrogation.
In both cases, there was clear knowledge that torture would occur, and no steps taken to prevent it.
That 2005 deal, put in place during Paul Martin's Liberal government reign, also illustrates how far we've drifted from our European allies in NATO, who insisted on considerably more stringent monitoring of detainees they handed over to Afghanistan.
All this suggests a chasm between the values traditionally espoused by Canada — fairness, decency and the rule of law — and the nefarious post-9/11 set of notions in which the leader of the "free world" is given a free hand to do as he wants with "evil-doers."
Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin wrote last week that the "new Canada has abandoned the independent strain we had" and that, in our growing closeness to Bush's America, we are "consorts now."
That sort of subordinate role is clearly what the Harper government, as well as some elite military and media types, have in mind for us.
But it doesn't seem to be what the Canadian public is willing to accept.
This Afghan saga reminds me of the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian engineer tortured in Syria. In both cases, Ottawa tried to downplay a growing scandal about Canadian complicity in torture. But Canadians demanded accountability and eventually forced Ottawa to abide by the rule of law, not the lawless ways of the Bush administration.
It seems that, while our political leaders may be comfortable accommodating Bush, most Canadians have yet to develop a taste for toadying.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

9 Comments so far
Show AllThe recent media attention does seem to overplay the role or "complicity" by Canadian troops and officials in Afghanistan and at home. How can you compare Afghans "handed over" to the Afghan government to allegations (and photos) of wrongdoing by our own servicemen?
To compare the Harper government to the Bush government seems like the low hanging fruit of the Canadian press and opinion pages.
Interesting the author's book focuses on energy policy. This would seem like more fertile territory for this type of criticism.
Welcome to the United States of Everything. You are our 128th state.
Hoa Binh
Jeremia asks:
"How can you compare Afghans "handed over" to the Afghan government to allegations (and photos) of wrongdoing by our own servicemen?"
Simple. Handing prisoners over to torturers makes one legally just as culpable as the torturers themselves. The only thing protecting Canadian troops from being indicted for war crimes is the fact that the International Criminal Court is rigged so that only the enemies of the United States government get prosecuted. Everyone else gets a free pass.
Please see "Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death" for an even more horrible story. Of those released from guantanamo who were english speaking, and weren't shipped back to a "friendly" nation where people frequently disappear: over half are container massacre witnesses, including the tipton three.
Is this what they are so terrified of them speaking about?
"Everyone else gets a free pass."
Since we are citizens of the states that have and continue to commit crimes against humanity, are we not guilty of these crimes as well?
It is the conscience of each and every one of us that must used to speak out to our families, our friends, our enemies and our countries that right must be done in order that we may live in peace.
Dr. Zimmerman Robert says:
"Since we are citizens of the states that have and continue to commit crimes against humanity, are we not guilty of these crimes as well?"
Um, no, neither legally nor morally.
I don't brand all US citizens as war criminals because their president is a war criminal. Nor do I accept any personal "guilt" for the crimes committed by Prime Minister Harper of Canada. As a Canadian citizen, I regard myself as part of the solution, not part of the problem.
---------
Here's a news item that sheds further light on Harper's dangerous mimicry of the Bush administration:
>>The Harper regime's standard response to Black and others questioning a Canadian combat future is to attack them as unpatriotic. It is the same tactic George W. Bush uses to vilify critics of his disastrous, failed invasion of Iraq.
>>Patriotism is admirable until it becomes a tool for falsely vilifying opponents as "pro-Taliban," a stock Harper line that sees partisan cheap-shots replace substantial debate.
>>It's all very Bush -- "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" -- and very much part of the Harper government's military, environment and foreign-policy alignment with Bush's failed Republican guard.
>>"This attempt to reposition the Canadian forces as a robust war-fighting U.S. ally has been under way for some time within the Canadian military, but it has come to fruition under the governments of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper," author and critic Linda McQuaig writes in her new book Holding the Bully's Coat, Canada and the U.S. Empire (Doubleday).
Source
Yeah McQuaig! We need more journalist/opinion writers like McQuaig in Canada and fewer Wente's and other "Mop and Pail" writers (aka "The Globe and Mail" of Toronto). Ms. McQuaig has a thorough knowledge of our politics and has been able to educate those of the Canadian public who either read "The Toronto Star," "Rabble.ca" or this website, "Commondreams," where Americans are also able to read her well articulated articles.
There is nothing more heinous than knowing that your country, through its leadership, has become a throwback to modernity by allowing torture. Every civilian deathblow in the Middle East through Western intervention and cruelty is one more event to come in the future through "blowback." Do not ask why when it happens. It has been well delineated by "CommonDreams" authors.
"Handing prisoners over to torturers makes one legally just as culpable as the torturers themselves. "
That's ridiculous. For example, if I borrowed your computer for a day and lended it to my friends who did illegal things on it, then you were charged with the crime and were arrested, you wouldn't blame me would you? I mean, sure I knew they were going to use the computer that way and I got a share of the money from it but that doesn't make me responsible for you being put in a cell with Bubba.
You may not like it, but it's the law.
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides that "No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
----
"The scope of the ... prohibition against refoulement was broadly drafted in order to apply to (i) transfers to any other state where an individual is in danger of torture; (ii) all persons in danger of torture upon transfer; and (iii) all types of transfers (including, for example, deportations or transfers pursuant to extradition treaties)." - Source
Quite apart from the law, one would have to be a moral cripple to think that a state could wash its hands of responsibility for torture merely by outsourcing it to another state.