Right. So I'm a Taliban commander in Afghanistan. I've just had an engagement with the Canadian Armed Forces, and I'm missing a few guys. So, I don't really know what happened to them, but I'm a little worried that the information they have might compromise my future operations.
My first thought is to read the online edition of the Globe and Mail.
My second thought is to ask around to see if anyone knows who has been taken prisoner by the Aghan National Army or the Afghan National Police.
My third thought is to see who knows if anyone has been taken prisoner. I know that a Taliban commander from Helmand bought his way of prison in Kabul for $US15,000, or really that some other guy showed up with $15,000 and bought him out. It is absolutely crucial that I have no idea what the Canadians are up to. In fact, I don't speak English. In fact, they don't speak Pashtun. Luckily, the Afghan government doesn't speak English.
Loose talk costs lives.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Sandra Buckler: Miss Communication
The Geneva Conventions, to which Canada has subscribed, are not ambiguous. Whatever Sandra Buckler might say about Canadian government "policy" is irrelevant in the light of Articles 10 and 12 of the Third Geneva conventions which are binding. I quote from Aricle 12:
"Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention [and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not] and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody. Nevertheless, if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with."
The High Contracting Power is the Government of Canada, not the Canadian Armed Forces. Nevertheless, as was shown at Nuremburg, military officers who contravene the conventions are themselves liable to prosecution for War Crimes. Thus, the November 5, 2007 halt to Canadian transfers of prisoners to Afghanistan "authorities" may have much less to do with "operational" judgement, than with members of the Canadian Armed Forces refusing to collude in War Crimes.
"Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them. Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention [and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is not] and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody. Nevertheless, if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with."
The High Contracting Power is the Government of Canada, not the Canadian Armed Forces. Nevertheless, as was shown at Nuremburg, military officers who contravene the conventions are themselves liable to prosecution for War Crimes. Thus, the November 5, 2007 halt to Canadian transfers of prisoners to Afghanistan "authorities" may have much less to do with "operational" judgement, than with members of the Canadian Armed Forces refusing to collude in War Crimes.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
National Post
I'm pleased that they published it. I'm unpleased that they took the guts out of it, about the Germans.
The reality of the Convervative government policy in Afghanistan is that it is unrealistic. The Afghanistan Compact cost nobody anything, is not binding, and major goals have aready been missed. As for the reality of NATO's commitment, here's the Washington Post on Germany:"When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government."It's not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality," a German official said."
The reality is also that the Germans aren't willing to get killed for Afghanistan, but they're willing to sell us $1.2 billion of tanks for us to use getting shot. Maybe if they just gave us the tanks it would make a little more sense.The reality is that there isn't any plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense, has real commitments, and has a real budget. Why should Canadian kids get killed because, in fact, the government is not realistic or honest about what's going on in NATO?
The reality of the Convervative government policy in Afghanistan is that it is unrealistic. The Afghanistan Compact cost nobody anything, is not binding, and major goals have aready been missed. As for the reality of NATO's commitment, here's the Washington Post on Germany:"When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Bush at his Texas ranch in November, U.S. and German officials said, she told him that while Bonn would step up its contribution in quiet northern Afghanistan, any change in Germany's noncombat role would spell political disaster for her conservative government."It's not an excuse; it's simply reality -- coalition reality and domestic reality," a German official said."
The reality is also that the Germans aren't willing to get killed for Afghanistan, but they're willing to sell us $1.2 billion of tanks for us to use getting shot. Maybe if they just gave us the tanks it would make a little more sense.The reality is that there isn't any plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense, has real commitments, and has a real budget. Why should Canadian kids get killed because, in fact, the government is not realistic or honest about what's going on in NATO?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Taliban commander buys his way of of prison
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7176807.stm
Actually, some other guy arrived with the money. But at the very least, it tells us that the Taliban (whoever they are and if indeed that's who we're taking prisoner, and in fact how would we know who we're taking prisoner?) -- the Taliban can find out who and where prisoners are.
Actually, some other guy arrived with the money. But at the very least, it tells us that the Taliban (whoever they are and if indeed that's who we're taking prisoner, and in fact how would we know who we're taking prisoner?) -- the Taliban can find out who and where prisoners are.
Update from the Commish
The lovely Vivian tells me my file is now with the "Acting Director of Investigations", otherwise "senior management" in the Office of the Information Commissioner. So it's moving, but days, weeks, months go by.
Meanwhile the Globe reports:
The extent to which top Canadian Forces brass looked to restrict public information about operations in Afghanistan is made clear in a June 20 e-mail to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, sent by Brigadier-General Peter Atkinson.
“Any ATI request for information related to DETAINEES, or Battle Damage Assessments (any report, SOP, SIR, sitrep related to IEDs, Vehicle Damage, casualties, protection, armour enhancements) is to be severed in its entirety less the address group at the top of the correspondence,” Brig.-Gen. Atkinson wrote.
“The rationale for doing so, is that this information if allowed to go into the public domain can be used by our enemies ie the Taliban, to further target and make assessments on their effectiveness against our own troops … it is based on these issues that the information identified above cannot be released as it puts our troops at greater risk.”
Right. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a Taliban commander was bought out of prison in Kabul by some guy who showed up with $US15,000, and this commander and is now back in Helmand giving interviews. Does Atkinson really think the Taliban (or whoever we're taking prisoner) won't be able to find out exactly who was taken prisoner and where they're being held? and how....exactly..... would any of that knowledge help in attacking Canadian troops?
Meanwhile the Globe reports:
The extent to which top Canadian Forces brass looked to restrict public information about operations in Afghanistan is made clear in a June 20 e-mail to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, sent by Brigadier-General Peter Atkinson.
“Any ATI request for information related to DETAINEES, or Battle Damage Assessments (any report, SOP, SIR, sitrep related to IEDs, Vehicle Damage, casualties, protection, armour enhancements) is to be severed in its entirety less the address group at the top of the correspondence,” Brig.-Gen. Atkinson wrote.
“The rationale for doing so, is that this information if allowed to go into the public domain can be used by our enemies ie the Taliban, to further target and make assessments on their effectiveness against our own troops … it is based on these issues that the information identified above cannot be released as it puts our troops at greater risk.”
Right. Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a Taliban commander was bought out of prison in Kabul by some guy who showed up with $US15,000, and this commander and is now back in Helmand giving interviews. Does Atkinson really think the Taliban (or whoever we're taking prisoner) won't be able to find out exactly who was taken prisoner and where they're being held? and how....exactly..... would any of that knowledge help in attacking Canadian troops?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Tiger Team vs. The Globe
The Globe and Mail contines to distinguish itself
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080102.detainee03/BNStory/Afghanistan/home/
by fighting the culture of secrecy now permeating the military.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080104.ETIGER04%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dmilitary%2Bsecrecy&ord=7373803&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
I can hardly believe that a group of military censors would call itself the "Tiger Team", but I guess evil and cheezy are not incompatible.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080102.detainee03/BNStory/Afghanistan/home/
by fighting the culture of secrecy now permeating the military.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20080104.ETIGER04%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dmilitary%2Bsecrecy&ord=7373803&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
I can hardly believe that a group of military censors would call itself the "Tiger Team", but I guess evil and cheezy are not incompatible.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The Great Game Foretold
While waiting to hear from the Information Commissioner, I was browsing in a dumpster behind the British Consulate on Melville Street and found the following.
http://picasaweb.google.com/nkitson/TheGreatGame
http://picasaweb.google.com/nkitson/TheGreatGame
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
