On CTV's Power Play show Wednesday host Tom Clark asked Brian Wilfert, the Vice-Chair of the Special Committee on Afghanistan (paraphrased) "Did Laurie Hawn contact you regarding participating in committee via teleconference, as he claims?" Wilfert's answer was a categorigal "Absolutely not!". You can choose who you believe.

I hope that a majority of Canadians do not care at all if there are partisan implications, for any party, in the Afghanistan detainee affair. We just want to know the truth.

We aren't getting the truth from our government.

Today in a sixteen page brief (PDF) addressed to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, Richard Colvin continued to set the record straight. Do read it.

Of the many issues noted, in my mind the most troubling accusation levied is that senior public service staff who both brief and take orders from Ministers and the Privy Council Office (the PM and his anointed) appear to have counselled Colvin and other embassy staff to lie about the situation in Afghanistan.

Think about it - the most senior levels of our government have institutionalized lying.

We aren't talking about some misdemeanor or minor public fraud but an issue of huge public importance, one that can bring down a government or, back then, hobble a new government. We are talking about a war which has cost Canadians dozens of billions of dollars since 2006. The financial and ideological capital tied up in this war are immense, not to mention the human casualties and suffering that are as a direct result of policy decisions made in the comfy confines of Ottawa area office buildings.

Given the obvious attempts by the government to hide the truth, or run from it, nothing less than a full judicial inquiry will do.

As I write this Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk is holding a hastily called press conference to announce that contrary to statements he made just yesterday, indeed there is some evidence that some Canadian detainees transferred to other powers have suffered abuse.

It would appear that the good General is busy building the plausible deniability defence for Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay, and Stephen Harper of course.

Reports of the early Harper government's control over information are the stuff of legend. I simply do not believe that the PMO, and the generals, are as clueless as they make themselves out to be on this issue.

Both groups - the political and top military brass - have a huge vested interest, especially circa 2006, in keeping from the public any negative reports that would sour public opinion against the mission.

Sure, deaths of our troops are negative in the extreme, but these alone are not enough to turn public opinion against the government's direction. The public is sophisticated enough to understand that, whether they have enough information to determine for themselves if they agree with the mission or not.

But the public would not countenance in any way shape or form our political and military leaders prosecuting a war where basic Canadian values are being cast aside, and that is in fact what appears to have been done.

Not by the rank and file, but by the political and military leadership of this country.

It is a cover-up and nothing less than a criminal inquiry will suffice to get to the bottom of what has transpired.

The government today released another 130 pages of redacted Richard Colvin documents . Many are redacted so heavily as to be worthless, but even still, these documents paint a clear picture which is in agreement with the testimony of Richard Colvin and contradicts the talking-points the Harper government has been using to attack and discredit Colvin.

I have never before in my 15-year career been told that, internally, we must lie to each other. Richard Colvin

Even a quick scan of the eight megabytes of scanned images (PDF) illustrates ample justification for calling a full public inquiry. Here is a quick extraction from the material:

• Concerns over detainee treatment were reported on by Colvin right from the start of his posting, not only after the Globe and Mail broke the story in spring 2007. Colvin himself alerted Kabul HQ (April 14 2007) that reporter Graeme Smith of the Globe and Mail had been conducting extensive research in preparation for a soon to be released article on torture and Canadian involvement which was "too close for comfort". Still, Colvin's attempts at moving the issue forward appeared to be stonewalled by either DFAIT, the military, or politicians back home or all of the above. For example on May 26, 2006 in memo KANDH0029:

  "[redacted] has been trying for some time to get these concerns taken seriously. [redacted] "very much taken aback by the reaction -- the very strong reaction -- of the Canadian military"

• Colvin's reporting shows a pattern of constant attention to the issue. (Page 10) Sept 19 2006: KBGR0118:

  Afghanistan [redacted] detainee concerns - [redacted] today raised with us an ongoing concern about detainees [redacted]

• Other organizations had reported significant concerns. (Page 13) September 28, 2006 KBGR01

  [redacted] what can only be described as strong criticisms of the Cdn approach on detainee issues. There [redacted] are [redacted.............]

• Concerns about the overall treatment of detainees, including those transferred to Afghan custody by Canadian forces, contradicting comments made by defence minister Peter MacKay, diplomat David Mulroney and three generals who testified before committee (p. 22, p. 24 on page 129)

• More than one year after the Harper government had taken power, detainees still were not being monitored appropriately per agreements with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission -- agreements that were made not with the former Martin government but with the Harper government in February 2007 (page 56); a key section of this document which apparently discusses Government of Canada awareness of abuse reports from the AIHRC is fully [redacted]. Why is this [redacted]?

• Despite a failure of the arrangements established by the Harper government, prisoner transfers from Canadian to Afghan hands continued (spring 2007). The Harper government via then defence minister Gordon O'Conner and also Prime Minister Harper even trumpeted the agreement as being both "recent" and "sufficient". (pages 56, 57)

• Colvin writes on April 24 2007 that a hastily developed "diplomatic contingency plan", developed ostensibly to address media pressure in Canada, ws "insufficient to address the urgent detainee crisis". (page 62) His recommendations include establishing a Government of Canada capacity to monitor detainees, and a suggestion that the military adjust their operations to reduce the number of detainees being captured and handed over in the first place. Clearly no one is recommending that suspects of a high degree of confidence be set free, so this indicates a somewhat wanton approach to taking prisoners.

• The very next day Colvin writes:

  "detainee methodologies in the field are too expansive, resulting in the detention of a significant number of Afghans who are not/ not insurgents or combatants."

• An observation that feedback from the field was not welcomed by HQ in Ottawa

• Many memos regarding detainees circa April 25 2007 and onward are redacted almost completely, yet the subject matter is of direct concern to the special committee inquiring into this matter.

• On or before April 30 2007 Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan a the time, Afir Lalani, had personally censored the distribution list of a memo regarding detainee monitoring and, it appears, had played a role in censoring other parts of the document. This seems to indicate that political orders from on high have declared Colvin a dangerous liability. (page 76)

• On May 7 2007 Colvin warns HQ/Ottawa that Globe and Mail reporter Graeme Smith will be publishing a follow up piece "within a few months" and that Smith's reportage was likely to raise serious public-policy questions.

• June 6 2007 embassy staff visit a detention facility in Kabul, intent on interviewing detainees which had been captured by Canadian forces in the Kandahar area. Reports of torture and abuse allegations are included in the memo (page 95)

• June 9 2007, a two and a half page memo on detainees, drafted by Colvin, is completely redacted.

• August 27, a Regional Command South brainstorming session is attended by a variety of nation's forces. Apparently many good ideas are discussed, but they are mostly redacted, and the conclusion in the memo is "we all recognize the problems but how are they to be solved?" Here Canada has been at war, but we don't call it war, for many years and still no reliable approach to detainees (not to mention ultimate justice for same) is in place. Clearly it isn't a priority for anyone who is in power.

• October 24 2007 Colvin writes what many might consider as a "career limiting memo", a conclusion of his time in Afghanistan. In his opinion Canada has not "come to grips" with the detainee problem and recommends that we stop handing detainees over to Kandahar-area Afghan forces. Period.

• In that same farewell memo, perhaps the most startling observation made is the Canadian embassy had made it perfectly clear that all personnel were to lie about the situation in Afghanistan, not just to media but maintain such lies even within their own ranks. This is a clear indication of intent - nothing less than full blown institutional cover-up. Within this memorandum written by Richard Colvin entitled: End-of-posting observations, dated 24 October 2007 and addressed to David Mulroney:

  Management of Afghanistan by DFAIT

  The next day, the point was unambiguously made to the whole embassy that henceforth the official embassy view is that things are getting better. This is completely contradicted by the available data, as well as by the careful assessments [redacted]. I have never before in my 15-year career been told that, internally, we must lie to each other. (page 125) Richard Colvin

It is long past time for an inquiry setting into this matter where perjury is punishable by jail time.

Attached: 130 pages of Colvin and related reports (PDF)

The Globe and Mail this morning continues to direct a bright light into the murkier recesses of our country's handling of Afghanistan detainee torture and abuse allegations.

Facts relentlessly rising to the surface of this fetid scandal serve only to buttress an inescapable conclusion: Canadians have been lied to directly and through omission by the Harper government.

Backing up allegations former diplomat Richard Colvin has levied against the government, the Globe and Mail today released a redacted document (attached) said to have been censored by Harper political appointee Arif Lalani, the former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan.

In the International Committee of the Red Cross's experience, 'a lot of abuse happens in the first days.'

Our own records substantiate ICRC's comments about continued delays in notification. For the four-month period of December 1, 2006, to March 30, 2007, the gap from detention by Canadian Forces to ICRC being informed was as long as 34 days. Text from censored component of report by Richard Colvin

Mr. Lalani, a political appointee of the Harper government, followed Christopher Alexander [1] who was appointed as ambassador in 2003. Alexander is a policy hawk who intends to run as a Conservative candidate in the federal riding of Ajax-Pickering.

There is so much smoke circling this scandal that a roaring fire can't be far below the surface. To get to the unvarnished truth of the matter what is needed is an inquiry venue that ensures perjury is rewarded with jail time.

I thought I'd seen it all but Stephen Harper dug himself a new low Monday, hiding behind our armed forces while launching his partisan missiles.

Let me just say this: Living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you. prime minister Stephen Harper

Andrew Coyne, a nominally Harper-friendly journalist, summed up the appropriate reaction to Harper's calculated move as this is just trash.

The truth, as is often the case when parsing Harper's words, is the polar opposite of what he said. No one leading the investigations into the truth are lobbing accusations at the military. Indeed the questions we all want answers to are mostly being directed at the Prime Minister's Office and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT). Harper stonewalls, and Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon refuses to stand give his account.

What is at issue are policies and orders of three federal governments as it pertains to our war in Afghanistan. Canadians want to know who knew what and when, and what policies were put or kept in place by who. We just want the truth.

A collection of reactions in the media:

Harper using soldiers as his shield (James Travers, The Star, Tuesday December 1 2009)

Stephen Harper isn't standing behind the troops; he's ducking behind them in an attempt to shift attention away from what politicians knew - and didn't do - about Afghanistan prisoner abuse.

Conservatives are now suffering from bad decisions, worse luck and an irrepressible instinct to put a bullet in the messenger. They are mired in the consequences of ignoring Afghanistan interrogation realities, failing to act when abuse became obvious and rushing to dump blame on scapegoats.

None of this faintly resembles standing up for the troops. That would require the simple, if highly unusual, declaration that politicians in Ottawa are ultimately accountable for what happened to prisoners in Afghanistan and that the loonie stops here.

Mission accomplished (Aaron Wherry, Macleans, Monday, November 30, 2009)

It is tempting to point out that the military does not act independently. That it acts, effectively, at the command of the government. That that government is presently led by Mr. Harper. And that whatever the Canadian Forces are presently accused of doing, they are said to have done so only at the direction of their superiors. But, of course, the Prime Minister was not attempting to posit an alternative understanding of government authority and the military. The Prime Minister was most likely doing here what the Prime Minister does when the questions prove too persistent or the accusations too uncomfortable.

Trash (Andrew Coyne, Macleans, Monday, November 30, 2009)

That's your prime minister talking, folks, accusing members of Parliament who raise legitimate questions about Canada's policy on the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan of smearing "our men and women in uniform." There is no sense in which this is true. There is no interpretation you can give it that draws it near to the truth. It is not even close. No one that I am aware of has made any criticism of the soldiers who handed over the prisoners to the Afghan security services --only of those who issued the orders to do so.

• Using the troops as props (Jane Taber, The Globe and Mail, Monday November 30 2009)

• PM taking 'low road' in torture debate (The Star, Tuesday December 1 2009)

Parker Donham today put out an important piece on his Contrarian blog which thoroughly eviscerates Christie Blatchford's low-grade attack on Richard Colvin in her column in Saturday's Globe and Mail. Read it now.

I would hope Parker's analysis gets widely forwarded and linked, and that more than a few letters are dispatched to the editor (letters@globeandmail.com - keep them under 150 words) today.

In the process of releasing classified documents government operatives are breaking the very law they claim prevents them from releasing these documents to our elected parliamentarians.

The Harper government is clearly fighting for its life here, playing hard ball with the opposition and loose with the facts presented to the Canadian public. Someone at very senior levels in the Harper government is breaking the law, and they are all breaking the trust of the Canadian people.

Defence and Foreign Affairs ministers MacKay and Cannon ought to be compelled to resign until the circumstances of these illegal document releases, and allegations of direct or indirect Canadian complicity in torture in Afghanistan, are fully and completely explored by a public inquiry or criminal investigation which must as a matter of course include a complete examination of the actions of the Prime Minister's Office and Stephen Harper himself.

Our Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence appear to be scandal-magnets of the first order. Yesterday defence minister Peter MacKay had a "Bernier" moment which may eventually lead to his resignation if the issue is rightfully and thoroughly followed up.

Globe and Mail: Generals dismiss diplomat

The issue: It has been made clear that civilians testifying before the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan (AFGH) on Thursday had in their possession classified documents which the committee itself has asked for but not been granted access to in even a redacted form.

The civilians in question? Retired general Rick Hiller and retired Lieutenant-general Michel Gauthier.

These documents should no more be in their hands than yours or mine or even in the possession of Mme. Julie Couillard.

Couillard you'll remember as the gal-pal of the former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier who was forced to resign over his having left reams of secret documents in Coulliard's apartment over a period of many weeks.

Globe and Mail: Warnings emailed to MacKay's Office

Now it's MacKay's turn, it seems, to hand out documents to his boy-buddies. MacKay is the former boss of these generals and both he and the generals, as well as the government of the day, have a vested interest in shutting down the line of inquiry currently taking place in AFGH. How did these civilians get access to the documents? It seems only logical that they would have come straight from MacKay's office, and one CBC journalist tried to get a straight answer from the Minister on just that question.

Watch the video (CBC: 01:05 minutes long)

The question: Why were two retired generals able to access secret-classified documents, ostensibly in preparation for their testimony at the Afghanistan hearings on Thursday? Documents which the AFGH committee has asked for repeatedly but been denied?

MacKay's answer: I don't know. Smirk. I don't tamper with witnesses. Laugh. Laugh. Laugh. Walk away.

Is this a big deal? Yes, on two fronts. Giving out classified documents to civilians is a probable breach of the Security of Information Act. But of greater to concern to us all we expect our government to deal with matters in a fair and principled manner. If the government subverts the efforts of its own committees, how can Canadians have any confidence that matters of any sort are being dealt with in a fair and just manner?

Doling out classified documents only to witnesses friendly to the government's position, but not affording the same access to the government's own committee searching for the truth behind these very serious allegations, is quite clearly a breach of the public trust. Canadians want and deserve nothing less than the truth but the Conservative government often looks at truth as its adversary. That is something we should all be concerned about.

After pointing to evidence that corroborated Richard Colvin's explosive testimony last week, I concluded My Canada does not condone torture with the question:

Why would they deny such allegations and attempt to hide the truth all these years, rather than take the bull by the horns and actually address the problem?

As these allegations were brought to the surface in 2006 by Colvin and others, the Harper government -- brand new to governing at that point -- could have puffed out its chest and directly faced the allegations and put a stop to either the torture, or bring to an end Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Taking on such an explosive issue in a very public way would elevate the newly minted minority government in the eyes of Canadians and delivered much needed political capital for use in the next election.

I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally

But Harper didn't walk that path. Instead he personally took charge of the propaganda campaign to hide these inconvenient truths - that Canada was complicit in the torture of thousands of people in Afghanistan - from the public. Why?

There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial.

Cold political calculation is the only logical answer. Whatever the eventual outcome in Afghanistan - win, lose or draw - remaining heavily involved in the Afghanistan war is far too attractive a political tool for our cold-blooded political animal of a Prime Minister to pass up and thus we shall continue to learn that Stephen Harper was willing to become an accomplice in war crimes in order to further his long term political objectives back at home.

... it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office

What does a dusty, arguably un-winnable, foreign war offer of value to Stephen Harper? The answer is: war is a weapon Harper aims at the folks back home. The objective: none other than the permanent realignment of so-called Canadian values towards a set of mores which are more conservative friendly in nature. Stephen Joseph Harper is willing to aid and abet war criminals and in doing so become their accomplice in war crimes, all in the name of long term domestic political considerations. Stephen Joseph Harper is willing to spend our treasury and the blood of our citizens, and of many others, to further his mission to re-engineer the social and ideological fabric of our country.

Torture in Afghanistan is routine. It is matter-of-fact... To pretend otherwise is a fantasy narrative.

In a recent article, A record of conservative achievement, Adam Daifallah (National Post) also asserts that Harper has been working to re-engineer the Canadian psyche since he first formed government in 2006. Among the so-called grand strategist's primary objectives he would list no less than the rebirth (some may rightly argue a birth, not a renaissance) of a militaristic culture in Canada. A country with this blue blood coursing through its veins is fertile land on which arch-conservatives may enjoy planting electoral seeds.

It is medieval, horrific. It is what they do to exercise power and control.

A country at war is also by definition running a high-stakes marketing campaign, and rather like election or "action plan" advertising, we see evidence of this everywhere in our country, from televised recruiting spots to rallies of the faithful to the increasing visibility of our military in every area of Canadian life from hockey arenas to summer and fall fairs and exhibitions across the land.

We are terrified to speak about it openly because it leaves our Afghan staff completely exposed and vulnerable to reprisals.

A senior NATO official of the time lays the case for Stephen Joseph Harper's complicity and future indictment:

"It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally," said the former official, who is not Canadian.

"The lines were, 'We have no evidence' of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister's Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver." a circa 2006 NATO public affairs officer (Toronto Star)

Harper's direct involvement confirms the stakes were high for him indeed, as does the behaviour of Harper's attack dogs last week as they relentlessly mauled the reputation of Richard Colvin whose blunt testimony has finally brought the crimes of this government and this prime minister under the spotlight.

Richard Colvin behaved as a straight-up-and-down person, completely honest

Stephen Harper made his own personal deal with the devil but sold our country's soul in the process. It isn't too late to pluck Canada from the abyss, but we must act fast and to that end citizens of the country should demand the immediate resignation of Stephen Harper and call for a criminal investigation into his complicity in war crimes.

Furthermore should the government or legal system of this country fail to act, when charges of such a serious nature are levelled at the government and the prime minister himself, now is the time when a minority government should be brought down by Her Majesties Loyal Opposition. That's what they are there for.

Updated with new documents and links to relevant articles from the press and concerned Canadians

Evidence continues to mount that Canada was complicit in hiding the facts of Afghan detainee torture allegations. Implicated are senior officials and politicians in the federal government which include former and current Ministers of Defence Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

... individuals held him to the ground [redacted] while the other [redacted] beating him with electrical wires and rubber hose.

Maybe Harper's Canada condones torture, but mine does not.

Backing up Richard Colvin's testimony that senior Canadian officials were alerted to credible allegations of torture among those detainees originally captured by the Canadian military is this redacted email. I've transcribed the scanned and redacted email to the best of my ability as follows (highlighting is mine):

The detainee indicated that he was never visited by a representative of [redacted]. He indicated that he believes the facility received a visit by representatives of [redacted]. He indicated that he was not provided with any legal representation nor was clearly informed of the charges against him.

When asked about his interrogation the detainee came forward with an allegation of abuse. He indicated that he has been interrogated on [redacted] occasions by a group of # individuals. He could not positively identify the individuals [redacted]. He indicated that he could not recall the [redacted (first?)] interrogation in any details as he was allegedly knocked unconscious early on. He alleged that during the [redacted (second?)] interrogation [redacted] individuals held him to the ground [redacted] while the other [redacted] beating him with electrical wires and rubber hose. He indicated a spot on the ground in the room we were interviewing in as the place where he was held down. He then pointed to a chair and stated the implements he had been struck with were underneath it. Under the chair, we found a large piece of braided electrical wire as well as a well as a rubber hose. He then showed us a bruise (approx. 4 inches long) on his back that could possibly be the result of a blow. [While we did not ask, after the interview was completed and before we left, [redacted] told us that [redacted].

The detainee specifically asked that these allegations be kept confidential (Not shared with NDS officials). Report from Canadian inspection of Afghan prison

The report was compiled by a Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) official, one of Richard Colvin's colleagues, following an inspection of an Afghan prison.

Other reports also filed by personnel in theatre also corroborate Colvin's testimony. Attached 4 page report KANDH0138 contains reports of abuse including:

• He alleged that he has been beaten while at NDS and [redacted]
• He claims that he was interrogated on [redacted] occasions while at NDX (approx. [redacted] and that he was beaten on [redacted])
• He alleged that he was beaten several times with a cable and was told that he would be [redacted]. He alleged that [redacted][redacted][redacted]

One can only imagine what sort of threats are being thrown at detainees while they are in the process of being beaten.

The Conservatives have unleashed their complete arsenal of attack dogs on this issue, striving to undermine the credibility of Colvin by painting him as a lone individual whose allegations are backed up by no one else.

But that isn't the case, as the attached documents clearly show. Clearly we've not learned the last of this sordid affair.

Who knew what and when are the key questions and there seems to be plenty of evidence circumstantial and otherwise to suggest that politicians right to the very top of the heap have known of these allegations for some time. If we take Colvin at his word, and increasingly it appears there is no reason not to accept his findings, the Harper government has known of these troubling issues since virtually the start of their tenure in government back in 2006.

Why would they deny such allegations and attempt to hide the truth all these years, rather than take the bull by the horns and actually address the problem? That is a subject for an upcoming post, and the conclusion I come to is almost as troubling as torture itself.

Attached: Redacted documents provided to the CBC this Thursday by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran.