There have… been allegations about the extent of Colvin’s travels in Afghanistan. Retired general Lewis MacKenzie said recently on CTV that based on information “from a very reliable source, (Colvin) [...]]]> Some more great investigative reporting by the Ottawa Citizen exposing the Conservative government’s (and it’s allies in the media) talking points as pure bunk:

There have… been allegations about the extent of Colvin’s travels in Afghanistan. Retired general Lewis MacKenzie said recently on CTV that based on information “from a very reliable source, (Colvin) was not permitted outside the wire in Kandahar probably once and maybe not more than once, and so was the victim of having to talk to a number of other people, diplomats, military, intelligence, et cetera, to send his opinion out on his now infamous e-mails, doing the very best he could with restrictions that were placed on him.”

The claim that Colvin went off the base only once was also repeated by Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford. It surfaced again on Tuesday, with the Conservatives using it to try to undercut Colvin’s reputation. “Here is a man, Mr. Colvin, who spent about a day out of his entire tour outside of the wire and had these few interviews,” said Treasury Board president Vic Toews. The Citizen has confirmed, however, that Colvin left the base at least six times to travel into Kandahar, in addition to travelling to other locations in Afghanistan.

H/T Aaron Wherry, and yet 1 more reason for holding a public inquiry on this – to expose more of the governments mistruths on this file, and the attempted smears done on Colvin’s work and reputation.

Comments released to a parliamentary committee this week about Afghanistan’s Khandahar prison that the facility seemed “to be in reasonably good condition” and that inmates got “enough [...]]]> …if you’re going to go after someone and try to discredit their testimony, at least make sure your attacks are accurate before you put them to print:

Comments released to a parliamentary committee this week about Afghanistan’s Khandahar prison that the facility seemed “to be in reasonably good condition” and that inmates got “enough food” were misattributed to Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin. In fact, the comments were made by an unknown third party and quoted by Mr. Colvin in an e-amil. Mr. Colvin made several trips, not one, outside the military base in Khandahar. Incorrect information appeared in a column November 28.

That would be the Globe and Mail making a “correction” in their print edition today on Blatchford’s November 28th column that went after Richard Colvin. In her rush to defend the Afghan mission, she didn’t do enough fact-checking on what she used in her attack column. Take anything Blatchford says from here on in with a grain of salt.

UPDATE @ 11:49 am: Kady’s take on the retraction and Blatchford’s original column

Canada’s top two commanders in Afghanistan in spring 2006 told investigators the government pressured them to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities faster than they felt was appropriate, CBC News [...]]]> More and more documents leaking out that incriminate the Conservative government on the detainees issue and how they didn’t want anything to do with them:

Canada’s top two commanders in Afghanistan in spring 2006 told investigators the government pressured them to transfer detainees to Afghan authorities faster than they felt was appropriate, CBC News has learned. Investigators for the military police complaints commission interviewed Brig.-Gen. David Fraser and Lt.-Col. Tom Putt, who both described the government as being obsessed with speed when it came to the transfer of Afghan detainees, according to transcripts of those interviews obtained by CBC News. Commanders in Canada wanted detainees handed over within 12 hours — faster, in most cases, than soldiers in the field could process them.

Ok, so the government was obsessed with speedy transfers.. and what about monitoring the detainees and how they were treated? Apparently no one thought it was their problem:

Both Putt and Fraser said the military’s interest in detainees ended as soon as the prisoners were transferred. The military didn’t monitor their condition — that was not its jurisdiction, Fraser said. And the government’s position was that monitoring detainees was an Afghan problem… It wasn’t until a full year after Canada started transferring detainees that the government started monitoring their treatment. In the meantime, it has been alleged that many had been abused — possibly even tortured.

The military officer also concurred with part of Colvin’s testimony on who we were “capturing”:

Putt’s testimony also suggests Canadian troops frequently weren’t capturing high-value Taliban targets — an assertion Colvin first raised two weeks ago. “I mean, we were basically capturing a local yokel, ” Putt said. “Detaining the local yokels and handing them off.”

It should be crystal clear to anyone with any sense of morality and rationality that a full fledged judicial public inquiry is needed.

The International Red Cross met twice with senior Canadian officials in Kandahar to deliver veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails a year before Canada acted to protect detainees. Details [...]]]> These unredacted documents were obtained by the Canadian Press. Courtesy of Aaron Wherry at Macleans, they don’t exactly help the government’s case:

The International Red Cross met twice with senior Canadian officials in Kandahar to deliver veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails a year before Canada acted to protect detainees. Details of the face-to-face meetings in 2006, outlined in uncensored memos examined by The Canadian Press, undermine the federal government’s claims that diplomat Richard Colvin was a lone voice raising vague concerns about torture.

The Red Cross is prevented by international rules from using the term “torture” and from commenting on one country’s behaviour to another. But the risks were so dire that detainees might be tortured in Afghan jails that the agency felt compelled to alert senior Canadian diplomats and officers in person, say memos made available on a confidential basis to The Canadian Press.

The Red Cross officially will not criticize the Canadian government over what it did or did not do during this time frame, but these documents in my opinion show someone somewhere has decided to stand up for Richard Colvin’s view of how events transpired, and it puts the Conservative government under more scrutiny:

..the new memos show that Colvin’s concerns were in fact shared by a respected humanitarian agency that pushed the diplomatic envelope to get the ear of Canadian officials. The International Red Cross by convention is allowed to raise specific concerns about torture only with the national government of a country. At the first face-to-face meeting, Maj. Erik Liebert, deputy commander of the provincial reconstruction base, was told by the Red Cross that no one in the Canadian military would take their telephone calls. He also heard Canada was too slow to report that it captured prisoners – sometimes taking 60 days – and that “a lot can happen in two months.”

Will the Prime Minister accuse the Red Cross of being against the troops now, too?

49% find Richard Colvin’s testimony credible; 10% side with federal government ministers.

As Steve said, that’s a ratio of 5-1 of people polled who believe Colvin’s testimony over the government’s official version of “no credible evidence”. [...]]]> Hat tip to Steve V over at Far and Wide for seeing this poll, taken on November 24/25:

49% find Richard Colvin’s testimony credible; 10% side with federal government ministers.

As Steve said, that’s a ratio of 5-1 of people polled who believe Colvin’s testimony over the government’s official version of “no credible evidence”. That’s even higher then the 2-1 margin from the initial poll taken a few days ago on Canadians impressions of Colvin’s testimony.

We also see in the same polling that a majority of people want a public inquiry:

A majority of respondents (53%) support launching a public inquiry on what the government and the Canadian Forces knew about reports of prisoner torture in Afghanistan, while 36 per cent are opposed.

As long as the Conservative government refuses to allow Richard Colvin’s memos he sent to his superiors to be seen in un-redacted (uncensored) form by the parliamentary committee on Afghanistan, I believe that percentage will stay high. The government gives the impression it has something to hide, and people are obviously not buying the “national security” argument (which is really what is ‘flimsy’ here, not Colvin’s testimony) in keeping these documents censored and away from public viewing.

As for Ambassador Mulroney’s appearance before the Afghanistan Committee yesterday, it wasn’t exactly a bang-up performance from the government’s point of view. As Kady O’Malley said at her liveblogging of the event yesterday, she thinks the government would have preferred less hedging on Mulroney’s testimony:

Dewar wants to know is how Mulroney can say, with absolute confidence, that those people weren’t being tortured. Mulroney keeps trying to point out that the agreement was meant to deal with that, but Dewar won’t let him get away with it, and Mulroney will only say that there was no evidence that they were. You know, I suspect the government may have been hoping for a more — unnuanced performance by Mulroney.

It’s time for those Colvin memos and documents to be released by the government. What is there to hide? Let’s see what they consider to be “ludicrous” and let the Committee and the Canadian people decide. It’s also time for a full independent judicial public inquiry – where the truth won’t be hijacked by government spin doctors.

PS – Steve has a list of points where he thinks Mulroney’s testimony was inconsistent or weak on argument. My blogging friend liberal Catnip also has a good post where she quotes Peter MacKay and Mulroney and believes the statements are contradictory, and that one of them isn’t telling the truth. You decide if she’s correct.

Look at what one of Colvin’s redacted reports say, courtesy of Boris over at The Galloping Beaver:

From Richard Colvin’s reports beginning in May 2006 :

3. Of the XXX [...]]]> A couple of other bloggers have already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating. Did the Generals testimony yesterday really refute Colvin that strongly?

Look at what one of Colvin’s redacted reports say, courtesy of Boris over at The Galloping Beaver:

From Richard Colvin’s reports beginning in May 2006 :

3. Of the XXX detainees we interviewed XXX said XXX had been whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and/or otherwise “hurt” while in NDS custody in Kandahar. This period of alleged abuse lasted from between XXX and XXX days, and was carried out in XXX and XXX. XXX detainees still had XXX on XXX body; XXX seemed traumatized. This alleged abuse would have occurred before the new arrangement between the governments of Canada and Afghanistan was signed.

The generals response? Since Colvin didnt put the specific word “TORTURE” in any of these.. why would they care? Here’s the story that ran after the Generals testimony:

‘Torture’ not mentioned in Afghan detainee reports: Generals

“Three generals declared Wednesday that there was no mention of the word “torture” in reports from a senior diplomat who asserts that he repeatedly warned the government against surrendering Afghan detainees to local authorities because they would almost certainly be abused.

Boris’s conclusion:

So there you have it – because Richard Colvin neglected to include the word “torture” in his accounts of detainees allegedly being “whipped with cables and shocked with electricity”, there was no torture and the generals apparently feel justified in having failed to read his reports in the first place.

Pogge says the same thing:

Apparently you can rise all the way to Chief of Defence Staff in this country without having to understand that being whipped with cables and shocked with electricity qualifies as torture.

Some journalists and yes, even some MP’s need to stop being so starry-eyed at folks like Hillier, and to not necessarily take everything these guys say at face-value. The best way to do that and get to the bottom of this remains a full judicial public inquiry, where full documents can be examined that the federal government is currently trying to block from being released, and where witnesses can come forward to testify without fear of reprisals from the aforementioned federal government.