header
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca

The Hill: Attempts to obstruct Colvin fail as story comes out
The Hill: Attempts to obstruct Colvin fail as story comes out

Bad things happen to politicians who don’t give their senior public servants the lawyer they want.

When career diplomat Richard Colvin was called to testify before the Military Police Complaints Commission about torture in Afghanistan, he wanted his own independent lawyer to represent him, not somebody from the Justice Department.

The government said no. So when Colvin started talking about testifying on his own, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he could be in violation of the Official Secrets Act, which upon conviction carries a prison term of up to five years.

With no star witness, commissioner Peter Tinsley shut down the inquiry. Harper’s bully tactics had succeeded. Well, not quite.

Don’t fool around with the men in striped pants at Foreign Affairs. They’ve been at the game a lot longer than the politicians have.

So Colvin went over to a parliamentary committee with the story he would have told to the commission. With his career potentially in ruins, he had nothing to lose. There’s nothing worse than that in politics.

Colvin’s testimony was shocking, damaging, and almost incredible as he brought allegations of Canadian politicians and generals closing their eyes to torture in Afghanistan. It made news around the world.
The Harper government then fell back upon an inept strategy.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was sent out to brand Colvin’s allegations of torture as false. Colvin was “a dupe” of the Taliban, he said.

So why had the Harper government appointed Colvin our intelligence chief at the Canadian Embassy in Washington? Would Americans relish sharing intelligence with a Taliban “dupe?”

Three generals were trotted out last Wednesday to refute Colvin before a Commons committee: retired general Rick Hillier, former chief of the defence staff; retired general Michel Gauthier, who ran the Afghanistan show from Ottawa; and Maj.-Gen. David Fraser, who was on the ground over there.

The generals were extremely insulted by what Colvin had said about their allegedly sloppy transfer of prisoners to Afghan jail guards and the apparent lack of followup as required by international law. 

That explains the virulence with which they shot back insults at Colvin. He had hurt their pride and forced them to rethink whether they had been negligent, as Hillier eloquently put it.

They hammered Colvin. There was no torture in Afghanistan on their watch, they said. Nothing of what Colvin said was true. They had done their duty. They exuded credibility.

Perhaps the Colvin reports do clear the generals, but what if they leave Harper and MacKay vulnerable to an investigation for war crimes violations for allegedly ignoring reports of torture in Afghanistan between May 2006 and October 2007?

Gauthier said something rather telling during his testimony. The generals had read the requirements under international law. Gauthier was adamant that  “we have understood our legal liability.”

International law holds the Harper government, not the Canadian military, responsible for setting prisoner-transfer policy in Afghanistan.

Was the general trying to tell us that others might not have understood their own legal liability?
It was particularly strange that the generals made no effort to defend Harper and MacKay in their comments. They protected their backsides.

Gauthier, in fact, openly defied Harper and MacKay. He said he “sincerely” hopes the Colvin documents are made available “soon” so that people can see for themselves how our generals weren’t to blame and didn’t ignore warnings of torture in Afghan prisons.

Harper would rather swallow a bag of rusty nails than release the Colvin documents. In the end, he may be forced to release a version of sorts. If it is so redacted as to be virtually meaningless, it will bring on more public criticism.

The usual approach for Harper on major scandals of this kind is to use the 3-D strategy: discredit, deflect, and dissipate.

Discrediting went over well at the start. MacKay clobbered Colvin in the Commons. The polls showed a majority believed Harper rather than the diplomat.

Deflecting isn’t going as well because the generals protected themselves without exonerating Harper.
Harper made it worse by speaking on the issue himself in the Commons. That’s called choosing to wear the scandal around your neck.

Maybe Harper had to come to MacKay’s rescue. Maybe MacKay was set up from the start.
Dissipate? This could be the scandal that never dies.

With 76 copies of the Colvin memos floating around Ottawa, it’s only a matter of time before the leaks begin.
Seventy-six e-mails of 16 reports aren’t a secret; they’re a broadcast.

The leaks have already started. There was Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, standing up at a news conference and waving around a CD containing backup information for the Colvin reports.

It’s too late now to send somebody over to rip it out of Neve’s hands.  
The Harper government has threatened anyone who leaks the Colvin memos with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

But jailing the head of Amnesty International? That’s out of the question.
The CBC has the report of a Canadian torture inspector who interviewed prisoners in the Sarpoza jail in Kandahar that backs up Colvin.

It’s an interesting development given MacKay’s claim that there was no independent confirmation of those allegations.

There are still those non-governmental organizations that spoke to Colvin, the findings of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, critical documents from the Red Cross, and various Dutch and British warnings to Canada.

There is a letter circulating that was sent to the Harper government detailing how the Dutch thought our military was doing such a sloppy job of transferring detainees without proper followup that they proposed to set up a joint prison facility run by their troops.

The defence minister at the time, Gordon O’Connor, never followed up.
Obviously, trying to prevent Colvin from getting his own lawyer didn’t work.

Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers.com.

Comments  

 
+10 # martin in toronto 2009-11-30 07:38
Mr. Colvin has nought to lose, and a moral and ethical right (duty, too) to tell Canadians, for whom he works, what is going on as he knows it. A gaggle of scared parliamentarian s are trying to chastise and denigrate the man, whose duty to us all came beforfe his ability to add teflon to Harper and his cronies.

Time for some hard-nosed public research into this dreadful allegation. MacKay (indeed, maybe Harper) may be in for serious trouble, in which case the voters who stuck 'em in their positions may have to do some serious re-thinking about the ethical principles they seem to be so fatally attracted to.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Janice 2009-12-01 04:06
Mr. Colvin stood before a Parliamentary standing Committee and honoured his oath to tell the truth and his responsibility to the Canadian people.

Mr. Colvin's integrity; intelligence and strong moral fibre makes him a hero; a giant among men.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Francesco. 2009-12-01 04:23
Though I think a poll last week showed that a lot more people believe Colvin than they do the Conservatives. Harper, Mackay and company are still trying to make hay out of this issue, but unless and until they release the emails and memos to back up their claim, they look like a sad assortment of B-grade Bush-era Republicans, spewing partisan bile in place of rational arguments. The even more pathetic thing is that they're not particularly good at the game. Unleashing yappy poodles like John Baird was a foolish move
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # stan squires 2009-12-16 07:27
I am from vancouver and i supports Richard Colvin at doing a good job in exposing what the canadian gov. is like.The canadian gov. is so reactionary that it will continue to stay on the same course even though the whole world don't agree with how canada is lying about afghan prisoners.The canadian gov. is a disgrace and a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Leave a comment about this article


Security code
Refresh


More Law Times TV...