'We hope this will minimize any disruption' - Macleans.ca

‘We hope this will minimize any disruption’


Within a “tranche” of previously undisclosed documents, the Globe finds an unmet pledge to build a prison in Afghanistan and a dispute between Afghan and NATO officials over access to detainees.

The NDS chief also complained bitterly to Canada, Britain and the Netherlands that their follow-up inspections aimed at making sure prisoners weren’t being transferred to torture – an international war crime – were creating problems in the prisons. Unexpected and multiple inspection visits were unwelcome, he wrote, and infringed on Afghan sovereignty.

Mr. Saleh threatened to cut-off inspections and – apparently seeking to appease the NDS chief – the three countries agreed to only conduct joint visits with plenty of advance notice and limit them to once a month at most. “We hope this will minimize any disruption caused by our access to your facilities and allow access arrangements to resume,” Canada, Britain and the Netherlands said in their written response to Mr. Saleh. “As the three main nations who transfer detainees over to NDS custody, we have discussed how best to respond to your concerns,” the letter says.


‘We hope this will minimize any disruption’

  1. Aaron, shouldn't that be an unmet pledge?

  2. By bringing letter after letter,note after note, directive after directive into the open, piece by piece, the Globe, the opposition parites and others will prove the point exactly: that entire Afghan detainee affair has been a long process, that within such process not one singular piece of evidence points in the direction of clearing this issue but that in fact it will make it more complicated yet.

    And therein lies the prpblem: because the Afghan detainee issue is very complex, is all about interchange of opinions and facts, is all about an interchange of being between a rock and a hard place but not ONE lettter or note or directive in particular has anything of significance to prove.

    So, to the Globe, the opposition and others, I would say: keep building up the molehill with tidbits of information, and soon you will see that the mountain you are building will become unsurmountable for fdinding that special piece of info you are looking for, all the while crying and shouting: It must be there, it must be there at the top!!

    • The fact that there are no easy answers doesn't in any way trump our right to know what out gov't may or may not have done in our name, does it?

      • i think he is just suggesting that Canadians are too dumb to follow the plot of a complicated story kcm.

    • Another argument for why the Harper government should have obeyed Parliament and produced all of the documents, instead of proroguing like cowards.

  3. Meh. We also have an unmet pledge to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda network.

    Aaron, any comment on the fact that the special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan has not, in fact, ever visited Afghanistan itself to follow up on issues such as detention facilities, prisoner treatment, mission progress, or to make future recommendations? Or are we content to merely dig up ancient documents of no relevance to the current situation?

    • That would be funny if not for the fact it isn't. What this article does do is go some way toward establishing is just how craven our gov't was when it came to the possibility of holding our own prisioners – we even actively opposed it. Rather than give em to the Americans [understandable] we were prepared to make promises of prisions we had no intention of building; we send craven letters to known torturers assuring them we would come less often and call before we came. How's that for starters?