OFFICIALS WANTED TO REIN IN COLVIN

*** Who is the liability now? Tell us how hiding this from Parliament in any way helped Canada, locally or on the international stage? Yeah, that's what I thought. MS ***


FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100614/national/afghan_cda_detainees


OTTAWA - Senior military officials at Canada's overseas command wanted to see diplomat-whistleblower Richard Colvin reined in and possibly removed from his job at the embassy in Kabul.

A toughly worded memo dated May 7, 2007, was released Monday as part of an inquiry by the military police complaints commission.

It painted Colvin as a troublemaker "with a pattern of questionable reporting decisions" whose position as the embassy's No. 2 should be re-evaluated.

It warned he "could become a liability to the Government of Canada's interests if left unchecked."

The memo, penned by a policy adviser at Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, recommended Colvin be reminded of responsibilities as a diplomat and "boundaries as a reporter." It said if he was not checked "his contribution to the Embassy in Kabul should be re-evaluated."

Starting in June 2006, Colvin filed a series of memos critical of Canada's policy in handing suspected Taliban prisoners over to Afghan authorities. He's testified his repeated warnings about possible torture were ignored.

The memos evidently got under the skin of Defence Department officials, who accused him of reporting "highly sensitive" operational details, expressing personal opinion without prior consultation and offering "unqualified criticism of Canadian Forces leadership decisions."

Colvin's explosive allegations became public last fall when they were aired before a parliamentary committee. At the time, many in government and the military professed never to have heard of the diplomat.

Gabrielle Duschner, a former senior policy advisor at the overseas command, said she was aware of the criticism of Colvin at the time and the impression at the Defence Department was inaccurate.

The memo recommending he be warned and possibly replaced was sent to her by one of her staff.

Duschner said she disagreed with the report's conclusions.

She told the commission hearing there was a general awareness and concern about the treatment of prisoners in Afghan jails prior to April 2007.

But Duschner said the issue became a No. 1 priority after media reports were published that month alleging abuse had take place.

The civilian-run complaints commission is investigating what military police knew — or should have known — about abuse allegations.

AFGHAN DOCUMENTS DEADLINE - 2 MORE WEEKS

*** We need an office for national security accountability to put an end to these shananigans. MS ***

FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100511/canada/canada_politics_afghanistan_military_prisoner

Canada's political parties were granted more time Tuesday to resolve an impasse over the release of sensitive Afghan war documents that risks triggering constitutional turmoil.

House Speaker Peter Milliken last month gave the Conservative minority government and opposition parties two more weeks to agree to terms for releasing the top secret documents.

The documents are believed to contain evidence that Canada transferred prisoners to Afghan custody knowing they could be tortured, in violation of Canadian and international law.

Milliken warned if the deadline was not met he would find the government in contempt of parliament, which could force snap elections.

Moments before the deadline lapsed on Tuesday, Milliken agreed to an all-party request for an extension to Friday that came from government House leader Jay Hill, his spokeswoman Heather Bradley told AFP.

Earlier, negotiators emerged from last-minute talks to tell reporters they needed more time.

"Talks are progressing and I'm optimistic," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said.

Opposition Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said "all parties are of the same mind at this point," but were struggling with a few complex and "extremely sensitive" issues.

"We've arrived at a point where we think some additional time is both necessary and appropriate and could be productively used," he said.

The standoff started after the lower House of Commons passed a motion in December ordering the government to produce the files.

But the government refused, citing national security concerns, and instead produced tens of thousands of heavily redacted pages.

"It is no exaggeration to say that it is a rare event for the speaker to be seized of a matter as complex and as heavy with consequence as the matter before us now," Milliken said two weeks ago.

Milliken encouraged both sides "to put in place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain."