- Natynczyk: The Military can't release any records - How Harperesque!
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:26:17 PM The Globe and Mail
Soldiers did not unlawfully shoot unarmed Afghan: Natynczyk, Steven Chase, Apr. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-did-not-unlawfully-shoot-unarmed-afghan-natynczyk/article1537734/ Tab 62
With all due respect to Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, it seems to me that the interpreter was very clear that he was relating the contents of what he had translated in questioning of those 9 or 10 detained after the said incident.
If Gen Natynczyk wants to investigate then, instead of reading the "after action review" made by the Canadian forces at the incident, which one would expect state that it was within the rule of engagement since otherwise this would have hit the news-waves a long time ago,
he should look to the transcripts of the questioning or question others who were present at the questioning to confirm or deny that that is what the Interpreter translated and the witnesses said. If it was then was it investigated. The Interpreter named names and presumably this could be done quite quickly, if one were so disposed.
Natynczyk's letter actually substantiates what the Interpreter testified to.
The only difference, is whether the Afghan killed was holding a gun or not. This is a question of fact, to which two eye witnesses attested too. From what Natynczyk wrote, there is no evidence that this was investigated any further than observing that one witness recanted at a later time. The point here is that one did not recant. Given the allegations of torture by the NDS, under what circumstances did the one recant, while he was being tortured by the NDS - I'd recant being born, under torture.
Gen. Natynczyk also points to the 9 detainees having tested positive for explosive residue, presumably as substantiating the claims set out in the "after action review" and refuting the interpreters testimony.
However, the Interpreter testified that at one time he stuck his hand in the dirt and was tested positive. This is very important and casts doubt on the residue testing generally and the basis for the 9 being detained. Also, he testified that some were old men and teenagers.
Gen. Natynczyk's letter fails to address either of these issues and given their importance and his reliance on the testing to support the official version of the incident, one can only wonder.
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:40:00 PM
Continued . . .
If I didn't have more respect for Gen. Natynczyk I might think that this is the kind of crazy logic one would expect to hear from Peter MacKay, the Harper government's legal advisor on 'admissibility of evidence'.
Gen Natynczyk's letter avoids the real issue here. "Canadian troops handing over Afghan Detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured"
The only question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and mis-lead, or he really missed the boat.
Perhaps Natynczyk is operating under tunnel vision. He might be so determined to find fault with the testimony of the interpreter and do so quickly to mitigate the damage, that he simply is unable to see any evidence that supports his testimony, after all: 'the allegation itself, is obviously not true, not from my men (and women), so the interpreter's testimony can't be credible'.
Of course, it may be strategic also.
And, of course, "The military is nevertheless refusing to release records of the matter, saying they contain 'sensitive information about tactics, techniques and procedures.'"
How Harperesque!
Although this testimony is collateral to the real issue - Canadian troops transferring Afghan detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured, it is extreme and easily doubted. So, throwing doubt on it is much easier. Once Canadians have doubt about this collateral testimony, it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to serious doubt about the real, central issue.
Would a military general, trained from youth in strategy and tactics, and so successfully as to be Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, think of such a thing, employ such a thing.
You tell me.
Better, lets ask Gen. Natynczyk, himself, in an open Public Judicial Inquiry, with proper questioning by professionals equally trained and skilled, in cross-examination and investigation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Soldiers did not unlawfully shoot unarmed Afghan: Natynczyk, Steven Chase, Apr. 16, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-did-not-unlawfully-shoot-unarmed-afghan-natynczyk/article1537734/ Tab 62
With all due respect to Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, it seems to me that the interpreter was very clear that he was relating the contents of what he had translated in questioning of those 9 or 10 detained after the said incident.
If Gen Natynczyk wants to investigate then, instead of reading the "after action review" made by the Canadian forces at the incident, which one would expect state that it was within the rule of engagement since otherwise this would have hit the news-waves a long time ago,
he should look to the transcripts of the questioning or question others who were present at the questioning to confirm or deny that that is what the Interpreter translated and the witnesses said. If it was then was it investigated. The Interpreter named names and presumably this could be done quite quickly, if one were so disposed.
Natynczyk's letter actually substantiates what the Interpreter testified to.
The only difference, is whether the Afghan killed was holding a gun or not. This is a question of fact, to which two eye witnesses attested too. From what Natynczyk wrote, there is no evidence that this was investigated any further than observing that one witness recanted at a later time. The point here is that one did not recant. Given the allegations of torture by the NDS, under what circumstances did the one recant, while he was being tortured by the NDS - I'd recant being born, under torture.
Gen. Natynczyk also points to the 9 detainees having tested positive for explosive residue, presumably as substantiating the claims set out in the "after action review" and refuting the interpreters testimony.
However, the Interpreter testified that at one time he stuck his hand in the dirt and was tested positive. This is very important and casts doubt on the residue testing generally and the basis for the 9 being detained. Also, he testified that some were old men and teenagers.
Gen. Natynczyk's letter fails to address either of these issues and given their importance and his reliance on the testing to support the official version of the incident, one can only wonder.
Posted: 4/18/2010 12:40:00 PM
Continued . . .
If I didn't have more respect for Gen. Natynczyk I might think that this is the kind of crazy logic one would expect to hear from Peter MacKay, the Harper government's legal advisor on 'admissibility of evidence'.
Gen Natynczyk's letter avoids the real issue here. "Canadian troops handing over Afghan Detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured"
The only question is whether it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and mis-lead, or he really missed the boat.
Perhaps Natynczyk is operating under tunnel vision. He might be so determined to find fault with the testimony of the interpreter and do so quickly to mitigate the damage, that he simply is unable to see any evidence that supports his testimony, after all: 'the allegation itself, is obviously not true, not from my men (and women), so the interpreter's testimony can't be credible'.
Of course, it may be strategic also.
And, of course, "The military is nevertheless refusing to release records of the matter, saying they contain 'sensitive information about tactics, techniques and procedures.'"
How Harperesque!
Although this testimony is collateral to the real issue - Canadian troops transferring Afghan detainees to the NDS that may have then been subjected to tortured, it is extreme and easily doubted. So, throwing doubt on it is much easier. Once Canadians have doubt about this collateral testimony, it is a mere hop-skip-and-a-jump to serious doubt about the real, central issue.
Would a military general, trained from youth in strategy and tactics, and so successfully as to be Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, think of such a thing, employ such a thing.
You tell me.
Better, lets ask Gen. Natynczyk, himself, in an open Public Judicial Inquiry, with proper questioning by professionals equally trained and skilled, in cross-examination and investigation.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
9:57 AM
<< Home