Dear General Hillier, You Exist At Our Behest, Best You Not Forget It
The issue of Canadian forces rendering detainees to Afghan authorities known for their use of torture heated up again today as The Globe & Mail continued to delve into the complicity of high ranking Canadian officials with regards to their knowledge of such practices or unwillingness to ensure that detainees being transferred were being treated properly.
According to the Globe…
“The Department of Foreign Affairs was pushed to the sidelines when Canada struck its detainee-transfer deal in Afghanistan, two senior government sources have told The Globe and Mail.
“We were not consulted,” said one, adding that Foreign Affairs was shunted aside by the Department of National Defence and Canada’s top soldier, Rick Hillier, when he signed the accord in 2005. The deal has become mired in controversy because it includes no follow-up role for Canada on the fate of detainees in Afghanistan’s notoriously brutal prison system.
Another senior foreign-service officer gave a longer explanation: “Hillier went to Kabul thinking of them [the detainees] as ‘scumbags’ and made the deal. Hillier wanted to sign it; he insisted on signing it,” he said. “Defence took the file and messed it up.”
The comment played off a remark General Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, made in July, 2005, when he set off a national debate by referring to the Taliban as “detestable murderers and scumbags.”
It should, for purposes of objectivity, be stated at this point that at the time the government of Paul Martin was in power, not that of Stephen Harper.
The article continues…
“Some of the backlash from Foreign Affair officials is a response to a harsh condemnation of them by a defence official last week, who said they were too busy eating canapés to rally to embattled Defence Minster Gordon O’Connor under fire for the detainee-transfer agreement.
“The bureaucrats at Foreign Affairs resisted getting stuck with this issue,” a defence source said. “They don’t want this hornet’s nest. They are happy going to their cocktail parties and eating little shrimps.”
One angry diplomat said the Defence Department seemed to have forgotten Glyn Berry, the diplomat killed in a Taliban suicide attack soon after Canadian Forces moved into Kandahar.
Now the interdepartmental spitting match has spread to include the matter of whether Gen. Hillier included, or should have included, Foreign Affairs in his original deal-making.
The Foreign Affairs source said the department did have concerns about the Hillier deal, particularly with respect to the level of monitoring of detainees that Canada would be allowed.
“Check the comparative assurances that the Dutch, for example, had compared to what we had. They had a higher level of oversight,” he said.
The Dutch agreement, negotiated within weeks of the Canadian deal, allows for both Dutch diplomats and Dutch military officers to make unlimited follow-up visits of transferred prisoners to ensure they aren’t tortured or abused or made to disappear; all of which occur in Afghan prisons.
The Defence officials who helped draft the Canadian agreement included then-judge-advocate-general Jerry Pitzul, a major-general, and a colonel on his staff, both of whom had experience in the laws of war and international humanitarian law, said a source involved with the discussions. Although the agreement did not include the right of Canadians to directly monitor detainees transferred to Afghan control, the military argued that it was not practical for the Canadian Forces to monitor detainees on the ground, because they did not have the capacity to carry out the task.”
Today the Prime Minister defended Hillier in the House of Commons stating…
“The information I have would indicate that General Hillier is correct and The Globe and Mail is wrong,” he said.
“It’s my understanding that such an agreement had to be discussed and approved by the ministers of the day in the Liberal Cabinet.”
NDP Defense critic Dawn Black commented during today’s question period…
“It’s impossible to get to the bottom of really who’s responsible. The issue is not how it was signed any more, or when it was signed, under whose authority. The issue is human rights, the allegations of torture and abuse, the fact that we should not be transferring now detainees over to Afghan authorities until we can ascertain for sure that they’re not in danger of being tortured and abused. That’s the issue.”
Her statement would be the most pragmatic point raised in the House today without question. But it should also be noted that…
“During Commons debate, the Liberals accused Mr. Harper of misleading the House of Commons over the alleged torture of Afghan detainees.
Mr. Harper told the House on Tuesday that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day disclosed information last week regarding Corrections Canada reports alleging detainee torture, citing Commons transcript as proof.
But a review of the transcript of Mr. Day’s comments shows no mention of the corrections officers reporting allegations of torture.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion noted that the first time anyone heard about the reports was on Monday, when Mr. Day was pressed by journalists.
The issue of whether Canadian officials reported torture claims is key to the federal government’s defence in a lawsuit by human rights groups, which seeks to halt the transfer of captured insurgents to Afghan authorities.
Calls for Mr. Harper to sack Mr. O’Connor met brisk resistance from the Harper Government, although Mr. O’Connor again spent most of Question Period silent as other government members parried Opposition blows.
“The Minister of Defence is undertaking very important action on behalf of the Canadian military, rebuilding our Canadian military after years of neglect and denigration by the party opposite,” Mr. Harper said.
“The Minister of National Defence and all ministers of this government are strong defenders of the Canadian military, unlike the party opposite, and we’re proud of it.”
But Mr. Dion said the Government was doing anything but supporting the troops through its recent actions.
“It’s when you maintain an incompetent minister, it’s when you see seniors officials contradicting themselves in the media, and there’s chaos on the government side, that’s when you’re not supporting your troops,” Mr. Dion said.”
Spin Doctoring
So where is Hillier while all of this is transpiring? He’s in Afghanistan with The Stanley Cup and 19 former NHL players who plan to play a couple of ball hockey games with the troops.
Questioned about the debate transpiring back home, Hillier did what those in his position and profession always do within the context of a society in which the military considers itself above repraoch, he attempted to make it an issue about not supporting Canadian troops, some of whom, he claimed, are ‘pissed off’ that what is transpiring in Canada to do with this scandal is detracting from the ‘positive aspects’ of their mission. Of course, Hillier’s representation of the situation is the only representation available to the public regarding their feelings.
Attempts to defuse this situation have been both swift and monumental. Today Hillier met with the governor of Kandahar who expressed his ‘frustration’ with how the information reaching Canadians about the abuses were not ‘the straight facts’. The governor’s statement thus calls into question the validity of the interviews conducted by the Globe & Mail’s Graeme Smith with some thirty detainees that conveyed to him stories of torture at the hands of Afghan authorities.
So who’s lying here? The Globe? Smith? The detainees? Or a member of an ineffectual government that knows it needs NATO to remain in the country for not only their own protection, but the protection of agreements that they have made with the West regarding Afghanistan’s future that, in no small part, helped them into power?
The Straight Goods
General Rick Hillier can, for all intents and purposes, jump off a bridge as far as I am concerned. Because the last time I checked, he worked for me and the other 30 some odd million Canadians that inhabit this nation – not the other way around.
What has taken place is of monumental importance and Canadians should be discussing it, and without their ability to do so being condemned as ‘not supporting the troops’. The members of our armed forces are in Afghanistan because of policy, and it’s the policy behind their deployment that is the issue, no matter which government initiated it or supports it.
That is democracy. The military leadership, like those appointed by the Prime Minister to key roles within his cabinet, are not above public scrutiny. For if they are, then this isn’t a democracy, we might as well stop pretending that that’s the case, and we shouldn’t be using the promotion of it in foreign locales as a justification for our military presence.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I was at the last paragraph when it popped into my head. If you (Matt) were to ‘interview’ Gen. Hiller, I would imagine it being like the Court scene at the end of A Few Good Men…..
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
they are war criminals: Hillier, Harper, O’Connel et al.
if only the Hague had more teeth…hell…if only a lot of us had more teeth…
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“What has taken place is of monumental importance”
This case, as well as the Maher Arar tragedy, have both left me questioning my national pride. I grew up believing that this country is the greatest on Earth. But the ho-hum response by many Canadians to issues that remake our national image makes me wonder if that same nationalism is inhibiting introspection.
It’s much easier to tell people how great you are than it is to show them. Especially when your words are hollow tipped.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
The Stanley cup… Next they’ll be bringing over people who can afford a few hundred thousand dollars for a vacation to spend a week there as a novelty trip. I thought that Gen. Hillier was a decent fellow, nothing wrong with him. Oh my, they’re all a little crazy.
Why is it that we use our knowledge to elect people to represent us, and then those people “protect” us from what knowledge they gain by being our representatives?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“Because the last time I checked, he worked for me and the other 30 some odd million Canadians that inhabit this nation – not the other way around.”
Exactly. It pains me to see the government’s abuse of authority, we pay their wages, they should be deciding and discussing things in front of us, not behind closed doors.
“So who’s lying here? The Globe? Smith? The detainees? Or a member of an ineffectual government…”
Everyone is lying, no one is telling the truth. The Globe/Smith: wants a good story (i have been a victim of this in the past, as i’m sure you have been many times Matt) The detainees: As much as I want to believe (and their story is most likely the closest too the truth) or Hiller: Well he is lying, and their is no doubt in my mind.
I want the Canada I was raised in back.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The military is certainly not above reproach. If Hillier thinks to gain favour by displaying the same attitude so prevelant in the US, that not-supporting the war is not supporting the troops, then he needs to be removed. He has forgotten his place within a democratic society.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Personally, I like General Hillier. I think he’s done great things for the Canadian Forces. Honestly, I don’t really blame him for doing likely-planned-beforehand morale exercises while this “crisis” is ongoing. He isn’t a politician, and therefore doesn’t behave like one.
War criminal? I think your frappucino is ready, sir. Likely, your friends at the fair trade coffee shop nod their heads in agreement to your rhetoric, but I won’t. While using the “our troops” defense may be viewed as tired, I think if I were a solider fighting in Afhganistan, I would be pissed off. All this time and energy focusing on the well-being of the people shooting at them, but who is concerned about the soldiers’ well-being?
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Actually, under international law, the handing over of prisoners to known torturers constitutes a war crime. Therefore, instead of treating us to your ignorant coffee shop blatherings, you might want to actually educate yourself about the issue before commenting to perhaps not appear uneducated on the subject whilst attacking others.
As for not being a politician, I could care less if he’s the King of Kensington. He works for the Canadian people - end of story. His position does not elevate him beyond that reality, nor does speaking ambuguously on behalf of those who, under military guidelines, are unable to speak to the press, automatically mean that his comments don’t merely represent 3 soldiers out of 200 for all we know. I get emails all the time from people who have served over there, and let me tell you, their views on the subject are quite different indeed.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Uneducated or not, I stand by what I said. By my “ignorant coffee shop blatherings”, I was merely trying to point out that I don’t think this story much matters to ordinary Canadians (as most of them are likely uneducated sods like myself). You have heard one opinion from people fighting over there and I’m sure General Hillier heard the other.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
In his personal life, Hillier might be a great guy. He might have great taste in art, beer, etc. He might have a dog that loves him, or even a cat.
But the fact remains that he knowingly and willingly broke international law. To my understanding, Canadian federal laws as well, though I could be misinformed on that point. Either is enough to qualify him, unfortunately, as a war criminal.
There are two basic kinds of “uneducatedness” that we are all born with: ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance can be changed with diligent study-it’s simply a state of being wherein certain information is lacking. Stupidity is what ignorance becomes when we refuse to accept new information, or to even look for it.
Far too many are choosing to be stupid, and it’s fucking up the country I love. Franky, it’s pissing me off.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
The only reason that I posted is because I didn’t see anyone posting from the other side. It’s not really a good discussion if everyone in it agrees with each other. From my knowledge of casually following politics, I like Gen. Hillier and think he has done a good job as CDS.
As to the educatedness of the general population, well, hasn’t this always been the case? I admittedly don’t know much about international law, but it just sort of rubbed me the wrong way to hear our current administration referred to as “war criminals”. In my opinion, that term is thrown around more than it likely should be.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I was merely trying to point out that I don’t think this story much matters to ordinary Canadians (as most of them are likely uneducated sods like myself).
Then shame on them. And you.
We put our troops in danger by not obeying international agreements/laws such as the Geneva Convention. Once we knowingly and willfully defy laws we become no better than those whose hate opresses citizens of the world that we want to rid society of.
Shame on anyone who doesn’t educate themselves on why this is a big deal.
If we snub our noses at laws that protect prisoners of war, what happens when our soldiers are taken hostage or become prisoners of war too? Granted, given the people we’re “fighting” odds are they’d be tortured anyway but we set the precedent for allowing it to happen by disobeying our obligation.
Hillier is a military prison and while I don’t fault him for that, I fault him for attempting to use our brave men and women as pawns to further his own desire for a bigger military than Canadians expect.
I want my Canada back.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I don’t think Hillier wants a bigger military than Canadians expect. He just doesn’t want one that gets shit on, as was done by the previous government for ten years. They had money for fountains in Shawinigan, but seemingly no money to keep our men and women well equipped. His job as CDS is to represent and get the best for the CF that he can.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The best job he can do is concentrate on the military aspect and the training and advocating for our troops and not concentrating on the policies and decisions. We don’t have a Joints Chief of Staff. We’re not the American military and, thank God, we never will be. If he wants to play rambo and speak out like we do have a joint chief position, he should ask for an interchange with the American military.
His job isn’t supposed to be condemning Canadians for having an opinion on what’s happening in Afghanistan. We’re allowed to question the military’s role without being accused of not supporting our troops. Not only is it our right, it is our responsibility.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:43 am
Ginormie are you RTFOH?
Hillier doesn’t want a big a military than Canadians expect?
ON APRIL 12 the Canadian government announced the acquisition of 120 Leopard 2 A6M heavy tanks. Unlike many of the protracted procurement projects that get mired in bureaucratic red tape for up to two decades before any hardware is actually delivered, this particular purchase is to be literally “off the shelf.”
The first 20 tanks will be acquired as surplus from the downsizing German army and will be shipped directly to our troops in Afghanistan.
Tanks…for use…in the mountainous terrain…of Afghan…
Are you aware how well Tanks worked for the Soviets in Afghan?
Hillier isn’t a politician?
By definition the The Chief of the Defense Staff is charged with the command, control and administration of the Canadian Forces and advises the Minister on all these matters - including military requirements, capabilities, options and the possible consequences of undertaking or failing to undertake various military activities. Whenever required, the Chief of the defense Staff advises the Prime Minister and Cabinet directly on major military developments. The CDS is thus the senior military advisor to the Government as a whole.
Speaking to Hillier’s last few years in the position he has been on several political type campaigns to garner support.And the Newfie “Aw shucks” persona would appear to be just that. He was born to grease palms as well as lead infantry battalions into battle. Something few leaders in history have been able to do…
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
Actually, in truth, what you did was make a comment regarding international law that was entirely inaccurate and then, when pressed on it, chose not to comment further on that aspect. Your understanding of what, in this situation, constitutes a war crime was entirely uneducated, and yet you attacked another person not based on fact but on your own inability to present a decent argument.
That is not counter argument, that is foolishness, and to pass it off as debate is ridiculous.
That and ‘educatedness’ is not a word in the English language.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
I detest the use of “Support our troops” as a way to basically tell people to shut up. I don’t know a person who doesn’t support our troops, you would have to be heartless to not want them all home safely.
We the people have a right to demand that all actions taken by the Canadian Forces over in Afghanistan are in line with domestic/international laws and that they conduct themselves to the highest standards possible.
Ensuring that the people handed over to the Afghan authorities are not mistreated is not only the right thing to do, but it also protects our soldier from any potential legal troubles.
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Perhaps some ‘educatedness’ is in order with regard to the nature of language, & since that is my area of study I’ll share some with y’all.
‘Educatedness’ could very well be a word. It is not what would come under a closed class/lexical category so people are quite free to add words as long as they conform to the grammar & as long as there is an mutual understanding of what is meant by it, so I don’t see how this particular word would be a problem. Language is a system that evolves over time. There is no such thing as a fixed “english language”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_class_word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_class_word
ginormie, I don’t think people are just throwing around terms like ‘war criminal’ without reason behind it. I see how one could react the way you do but you need to have reasons backing you besides: “rubs me the wrong way” in order to have an educated discussion…That’s just an emotional response. People are so easily manipulated by psychological tactics that just get a gut reaction & leads them to jump to conclusions where further examination would maybe lead you to conclude that your initial reaction may be based on some false assumptions. In the end you just look foolish. The unfortunate thing about that though is that some people are completely oblivious to how follish they look even when/if it is pointed out to them. They just push on regardless. & This is what keeps us in such bullshit messes. Willful ignorance.
“All this time and energy focusing on the well-being of the people shooting at them, but who is concerned about the soldiers’ well-being?” I don’t think this is what people here are trying to say. It’s just that we can’t lose sight of the fact that both sides are human beings & that we should be concerned with the well-being of them all, generally. Supporting the war & supporting the troops; these are not mutually exclusive. It’s just a tactic to get people who don’t agree with war to be painted as “not supporting the troops”. How unpatriotic, they say, when the principles that the country is said to be based on are being disregarded…
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
To be completely honest, is anyone representing the other side of anything, or are they representing themselves and the opinions of those they know? Don’t pick sides just because someone isn’t speaking against everyone else. That makes you look like an ass, which is a quick and probably inaccurate judgement, but I’m only speaking the opinion of myself. Anyone else who thinks likewise can speak all on their own.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
To be fair, after I was initially corrected, I admitted to being uneducated on the subject of what exactly constituted a war crime. I stuck by what I said anyway because I don’t agree with your opinion or harsh words for the CDS.
Pass your judgment as you will. But I will say this, no one else posted who wasn’t in agreement with what you said and I struggle to believe this is because that Hillier is indefensible.
Thanks to everyone who responded and those who challenged my choice and spelling of words, but I won’t be checking back for replies.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Matt, you mentioned you recieve email from those that serve (or have served) I am just curious, how much internet access do our Troops have over there? Do they get the latest (such as discussions on this site), or is everything screened and/or blocked due to possible negativity?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:27 am
The CF has various safeguards and firewalls at all DND workstations.
This site is not blocked…Raymi the Minx’s is…
Some soldiers living in quarters have internet access but there is a screen for some of the content coming in and out for Operational Security (Op Sec) reasons.
Obviously those “outside the wire” don’t have much computer access but there are stations up and running in Camp for emails and stuff home to family and friends.