Mensaje por Ribetano » 03 Feb 2012 22:07
Gordon O´Connor nunca envió esa carta. De hecho primero se la adjudicaron a Donald Rumsfeld en EE.UU. Es una contracampaña contra una campaña de Amnistía Internacional.
Open Letter to National Defense Minister, Gordon O'Connor
Posted: 11 April 2006
The Honourable Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence
Major General George R. Pearkes Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2
3 April 2006
Dear Minister,
I am writing with respect to Amnesty International's continuing concerns about Canadian policy and practice regarding the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
In January 2002 Amnesty International first highlighted concerns that Canadian policy and practice was in possible contravention of Canada's human rights and humanitarian legal obligations. At that time we wrote to Minister Eggleton, concerned about Canada's decision to transfer detainees into US custody, given the US position that it was not formally required to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
We have written several times since then. Our concerns mounted as reports emerged of the torture and mistreatment of detainees in US detention facilities in Afghanistan, and as it became clear that some detainees handed over by Canadian troops had ended up in detention at Guantanamo Bay.
More recently we wrote to Minister Graham on October 11, 2005 urging that in light of ongoing concerns about US practice, Canada cease transferring detainees to US forces and "that Canadian troops . take responsibility for the detention of any individuals they apprehend in the course of operations in Afghanistan."
In a meeting with Minister Graham and the Judge Advocate General on November 15, 2005, Amnesty International was told that it was the government's intention to conclude an agreement with the Afghan government such that detainees would be transferred into Afghan custody rather than to US forces. On November 21 Amnesty International wrote again to the Minister, raising questions about the possibility of such an agreement, given well documented concerns about mistreatment of prisoners and conditions in Afghan detention centres. We also highlighted concerns about monitoring and access, as well as the need for measures to guard against further subsequent transfers of prisoners by Afghan officials into US custody.
Canada has, of course, now finalized this new "arrangement" with the Afghan government. Amnesty International has had an opportunity to review the document, and has the following preliminary concerns and questions:
•The arrangement applies "in the event of a transfer" to Afghan forces. It does not appear to require a transfer. This leaves open the possibility that some detainees will perhaps not be transferred to Afghan custody and would, assumedly, either remain in Canadian custody or be transferred to some other country. This suggests that longstanding concerns about Canadian transfers into US custody have, perhaps, not been fully resolved. We would appreciate clarification as to what is intended.
•What is the scope of application of this arrangement? In particular, does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, regardless of the command structure in which they are deployed. We raise this question as it is our understanding that while most Canadian forces are part of the NATO International Security Assistance Force, others are deployed as part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
•We are aware from the Department of National Defence website that there are "embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram." We would be interested to know whether this arrangement will cover those officers. Additionally we seek clarification as to whether these officers play a role that is in any way associated with operation of US detention facilities at Bagram.
•How will the arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces? If an Afghan soldier makes the actual physical apprehension does that mean it will not be considered a transfer and the arrangement will not apply?
• The arrangement has a number of references to the Third Geneva Convention. It does not, however, explicitly refer to international human rights legal obligations. International human rights law is referenced in the preamble to the Dutch agreement. Amnesty International is concerned about that omission in this arrangement.
•Given the well-documented prevalence of torture and ill-treatment in Afghan prisons, what is the government's position as to the possible culpability of Canadian soldiers if they transfer a detainee into Afghan custody and he does indeed experience torture or ill-treatment?
•Does the government consider that this arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of prisoners by Afghan officials into the custody of any other government without Canadian consent?
•Can the government explain why this arrangement does not appear to provide the same level of monitoring and access guarantees for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission as does the agreement between the Afghan and Dutch governments?
•What is the government's view of this being termed an "arrangement" rather than an agreement or, as in the Dutch case, a Memorandum of Understanding? Does this have consequences for the document's legal weight or enforceability?
•Finally, given these concerns and given the emerging indications that Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, at a substantial troop level, is likely to continue for a number of years, we would appreciate an indication as to why Canada has chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention capacity in the country, at least until such time as it is clear that efforts to improve the Afghan prison system have been successful.
We look forward to hearing from you about these points. Your office is quoted in today's Globe & Mail stating that there is no intention to review this arrangement. Given the numerous and very serious questions and concerns identified above, we urge you to reconsider that position. Steps need to be taken to ensure that this arrangement is fully consistent with Canada and Afghanistan's international obligations in the area of human rights and humanitarian law. We would welcome an opportunity to meet to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada
Gordon O´Connor nunca envió esa carta. De hecho primero se la adjudicaron a Donald Rumsfeld en EE.UU. Es una contracampaña contra una campaña de Amnistía Internacional.
Open Letter to National Defense Minister, Gordon O'Connor
Posted: 11 April 2006
The Honourable Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence
Major General George R. Pearkes Building
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2
3 April 2006
Dear Minister,
I am writing with respect to Amnesty International's continuing concerns about Canadian policy and practice regarding the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
In January 2002 Amnesty International first highlighted concerns that Canadian policy and practice was in possible contravention of Canada's human rights and humanitarian legal obligations. At that time we wrote to Minister Eggleton, concerned about Canada's decision to transfer detainees into US custody, given the US position that it was not formally required to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
We have written several times since then. Our concerns mounted as reports emerged of the torture and mistreatment of detainees in US detention facilities in Afghanistan, and as it became clear that some detainees handed over by Canadian troops had ended up in detention at Guantanamo Bay.
More recently we wrote to Minister Graham on October 11, 2005 urging that in light of ongoing concerns about US practice, Canada cease transferring detainees to US forces and "that Canadian troops . take responsibility for the detention of any individuals they apprehend in the course of operations in Afghanistan."
In a meeting with Minister Graham and the Judge Advocate General on November 15, 2005, Amnesty International was told that it was the government's intention to conclude an agreement with the Afghan government such that detainees would be transferred into Afghan custody rather than to US forces. On November 21 Amnesty International wrote again to the Minister, raising questions about the possibility of such an agreement, given well documented concerns about mistreatment of prisoners and conditions in Afghan detention centres. We also highlighted concerns about monitoring and access, as well as the need for measures to guard against further subsequent transfers of prisoners by Afghan officials into US custody.
Canada has, of course, now finalized this new "arrangement" with the Afghan government. Amnesty International has had an opportunity to review the document, and has the following preliminary concerns and questions:
•The arrangement applies "in the event of a transfer" to Afghan forces. It does not appear to require a transfer. This leaves open the possibility that some detainees will perhaps not be transferred to Afghan custody and would, assumedly, either remain in Canadian custody or be transferred to some other country. This suggests that longstanding concerns about Canadian transfers into US custody have, perhaps, not been fully resolved. We would appreciate clarification as to what is intended.
•What is the scope of application of this arrangement? In particular, does it apply to all Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan, regardless of the command structure in which they are deployed. We raise this question as it is our understanding that while most Canadian forces are part of the NATO International Security Assistance Force, others are deployed as part of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
•We are aware from the Department of National Defence website that there are "embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram." We would be interested to know whether this arrangement will cover those officers. Additionally we seek clarification as to whether these officers play a role that is in any way associated with operation of US detention facilities at Bagram.
•How will the arrangement operate when Canadian soldiers are engaged in a joint operation with Afghan forces? If an Afghan soldier makes the actual physical apprehension does that mean it will not be considered a transfer and the arrangement will not apply?
• The arrangement has a number of references to the Third Geneva Convention. It does not, however, explicitly refer to international human rights legal obligations. International human rights law is referenced in the preamble to the Dutch agreement. Amnesty International is concerned about that omission in this arrangement.
•Given the well-documented prevalence of torture and ill-treatment in Afghan prisons, what is the government's position as to the possible culpability of Canadian soldiers if they transfer a detainee into Afghan custody and he does indeed experience torture or ill-treatment?
•Does the government consider that this arrangement guarantees that there will be no further transfers of prisoners by Afghan officials into the custody of any other government without Canadian consent?
•Can the government explain why this arrangement does not appear to provide the same level of monitoring and access guarantees for the Canadian government or for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission as does the agreement between the Afghan and Dutch governments?
•What is the government's view of this being termed an "arrangement" rather than an agreement or, as in the Dutch case, a Memorandum of Understanding? Does this have consequences for the document's legal weight or enforceability?
•Finally, given these concerns and given the emerging indications that Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, at a substantial troop level, is likely to continue for a number of years, we would appreciate an indication as to why Canada has chosen not to develop and maintain its own detention capacity in the country, at least until such time as it is clear that efforts to improve the Afghan prison system have been successful.
We look forward to hearing from you about these points. Your office is quoted in today's Globe & Mail stating that there is no intention to review this arrangement. Given the numerous and very serious questions and concerns identified above, we urge you to reconsider that position. Steps need to be taken to ensure that this arrangement is fully consistent with Canada and Afghanistan's international obligations in the area of human rights and humanitarian law. We would welcome an opportunity to meet to discuss these issues further.
Sincerely,
Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada
