Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07OTTAWA2073
2007-11-09 22:01:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ottawa
Cable title:
NEW CHALLENGES TO CANADA'S AFGHAN DETAINEE POLICY
how-toVZCZCXRO3477 OO RUEHDBU RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHPW RUEHQU RUEHVC DE RUEHOT #2073 3132201 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 092201Z NOV 07 FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6891 INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 0140 RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L OTTAWA 002073
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/09/2017
TAGS: PHUM NATO AG CA
SUBJECT: NEW CHALLENGES TO CANADA'S AFGHAN DETAINEE POLICY
Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L OTTAWA 002073
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/09/2017
TAGS: PHUM NATO AG CA
SUBJECT: NEW CHALLENGES TO CANADA'S AFGHAN DETAINEE POLICY
Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary: According to Canadian officials, the
government soon will face new legal and political challenges
to its practice of conveying detainees to Afghan authorities.
Official documents that the Canadian federal court has
compelled the government to convey to opponents of the policy
will probably appear in the public domain, perhaps during the
week of November 12. Government officials have redacted
passages of the documents to prevent harm to Canada's NATO
allies, but the courts might still ultimately order the
release of these passages. End Summary.
2. (C) On November 9, Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade (DFAIT) Afghanistan Task Force Director General Cindy
Termorshuizen told diplomats representing the U.S., UK,
Netherlands, and Denmark that, shortly after November 14, the
Government of Canada would face concerted new political and
legal challenges to its practice of conveying detainees
captured in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities. Termorshuizen
explained that the federal court had ordered the government
to make relevant internal reports and deliberative documents
available to counsel representing groups opposed to the
practice.
3. (C) The redacted documents are not meant for public
consumption, she noted, but the government assumes that
opposing counsel will cherry-pick and share the most damning
passages directly with sympathetic journalists. Government
officials are now debating internally whether pre-emptively
instead to make the entire collection available on a public
website, she explained.
4. (C) Termorshuizen emphasized that there was nothing in
the documents "at this time" to reflect badly on Canada's
NATO partners. The Governments of Canada and Afghanistan do
not fare so well, she commented, in part because the date
range ends in July 2007, just before Canada renegotiated its
detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan, began deploying
corrections experts to Kabul and Kandahar, and took other
strong measures to begin building a culture of respect for
human rights in Afghan detention centers.
5. (C) Termorshuizen admitted that there was information and
opinion in the documents that potentially could reflect badly
on other NATO members, but stressed that DFAIT had redacted
such portions by citing to the court the damage its release
would cause to Canadian foreign policy interests. However,
she acknowledged that, ultimately, it would be up to the
Attorney General and Canada's courts to decide what
information would remain redacted.
Background
--------------
6. (C) In February 2007, Amnesty International (AI) and the
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed
suit in the Canadian Federal Court seeking a writ of
prohibition "preventing Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan
from transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities or any
other state that was likely to torture them, including the
United States." AI and the BCCLA argued that the CF practice
of handing over detainees to the Afghan authorities under the
Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement violated the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and Article 3 of the
UN convention against torture, which states that parties will
not "expel, return or extradite" a person to another state
where he will be subjected to torture.
Qwhere he will be subjected to torture.
7. (C) The government countered that the Court had no
standing because the Charter does not apply to non-Canadians
outside Canada and that, pursuant to the UN Convention,
Canadian authorities in Afghanistan do not "expel, return or
extradite" persons to another country when they hand
detainees captured in Afghanistan over to Afghan authorities.
The government's argument convinced the judge hearing the
case to permit the handover of detainees to continue while
the case progresses. Termorshuizen predicted nonetheless
that opposing counsel will use the forthcoming load of
information to take another shot at getting the judge to
issue a writ that would stop the practice until the case is
finally decided.
Visit our shared North American Partnership blog (Canada & Mexico) at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap
WILKINS
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/09/2017
TAGS: PHUM NATO AG CA
SUBJECT: NEW CHALLENGES TO CANADA'S AFGHAN DETAINEE POLICY
Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary: According to Canadian officials, the
government soon will face new legal and political challenges
to its practice of conveying detainees to Afghan authorities.
Official documents that the Canadian federal court has
compelled the government to convey to opponents of the policy
will probably appear in the public domain, perhaps during the
week of November 12. Government officials have redacted
passages of the documents to prevent harm to Canada's NATO
allies, but the courts might still ultimately order the
release of these passages. End Summary.
2. (C) On November 9, Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade (DFAIT) Afghanistan Task Force Director General Cindy
Termorshuizen told diplomats representing the U.S., UK,
Netherlands, and Denmark that, shortly after November 14, the
Government of Canada would face concerted new political and
legal challenges to its practice of conveying detainees
captured in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities. Termorshuizen
explained that the federal court had ordered the government
to make relevant internal reports and deliberative documents
available to counsel representing groups opposed to the
practice.
3. (C) The redacted documents are not meant for public
consumption, she noted, but the government assumes that
opposing counsel will cherry-pick and share the most damning
passages directly with sympathetic journalists. Government
officials are now debating internally whether pre-emptively
instead to make the entire collection available on a public
website, she explained.
4. (C) Termorshuizen emphasized that there was nothing in
the documents "at this time" to reflect badly on Canada's
NATO partners. The Governments of Canada and Afghanistan do
not fare so well, she commented, in part because the date
range ends in July 2007, just before Canada renegotiated its
detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan, began deploying
corrections experts to Kabul and Kandahar, and took other
strong measures to begin building a culture of respect for
human rights in Afghan detention centers.
5. (C) Termorshuizen admitted that there was information and
opinion in the documents that potentially could reflect badly
on other NATO members, but stressed that DFAIT had redacted
such portions by citing to the court the damage its release
would cause to Canadian foreign policy interests. However,
she acknowledged that, ultimately, it would be up to the
Attorney General and Canada's courts to decide what
information would remain redacted.
Background
--------------
6. (C) In February 2007, Amnesty International (AI) and the
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) filed
suit in the Canadian Federal Court seeking a writ of
prohibition "preventing Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan
from transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities or any
other state that was likely to torture them, including the
United States." AI and the BCCLA argued that the CF practice
of handing over detainees to the Afghan authorities under the
Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement violated the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and Article 3 of the
UN convention against torture, which states that parties will
not "expel, return or extradite" a person to another state
where he will be subjected to torture.
Qwhere he will be subjected to torture.
7. (C) The government countered that the Court had no
standing because the Charter does not apply to non-Canadians
outside Canada and that, pursuant to the UN Convention,
Canadian authorities in Afghanistan do not "expel, return or
extradite" persons to another country when they hand
detainees captured in Afghanistan over to Afghan authorities.
The government's argument convinced the judge hearing the
case to permit the handover of detainees to continue while
the case progresses. Termorshuizen predicted nonetheless
that opposing counsel will use the forthcoming load of
information to take another shot at getting the judge to
issue a writ that would stop the practice until the case is
finally decided.
Visit our shared North American Partnership blog (Canada & Mexico) at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap
WILKINS