The Red Cross (Crescent) Lays Down the Law..

Holy Cow!!!


The Toronto Star broke a hell of a headline today, "MacKay's office got Red Cross warnings about Afghan treatment".

Man. Peter MacKay must be sweating it now.

Unless you actually read the story. What, exactly, did the Red Cross warn Richard Colvin of, and what did he pass on to Peter MacKay's department, to warrant this scandalous headline?

Let’s break it down, shall we?

Two emails that reached MacKay's office outlined a litany of Red Cross concerns, including worries about the treatment of detainees, Canadian tardiness in reporting their detention to the international agency, lack of proper information to identify the prisoners and one pointed reminder of Canadian responsibility.


"Canada's responsibility does not cease just because they (prisoners) had been turned over to Afghan authorities," a Red Cross official is quoted as saying in a June 2, 2006, memo by Colvin.

Ok. So, uh, no suggestion at all that they have any indication of prisoners being tortured at Afghan hands.

I guess that comes later in the story... so, let's continue, shall we?

Colvin's emails detailed Red Cross frustrations over Canadian forces' failure to collect enough identifying information and delays in notifying the Red Cross of their transfer, which hampered the job of tracking detainees once they were handed over to Afghan authorities.


The June 2, 2006, email said that a Red Cross official stated: "When things get difficult, some authorities in Afghanistan get tougher and tougher."

The June 2 email says the Red Cross regrets it is unable to discuss the condition of detainees handed over to Afghan custody because that information is "confidential."

Oh. I see now. The Red Cross said the authorities in Afghanistan get "tougher" when things are difficult. I guess that happens when a bunch of psychotic zealots are bent on killing infidels... and women who read.

Still... I don't see the "smoking gun" allegation where Colvin says the Red Cross had, well, even allegations of torture, let alone, uh, evidence.

It must be coming...

What? So, the Red Cross is "worried" about detainees, but, apparently, never suggested there was any risk of torture, let alone evidence that some torture had occurred. And when actual condition of detainees was asked about, well, they were "unable" to discuss that because it was "confidential".

Neither email explicitly states the word torture, which may explain why the government insists it was never alerted to "credible" allegations of "torture."


Indeed, the June 2 email says the Red Cross regrets it is unable to discuss the condition of detainees handed over to Afghan custody because that information is "confidential."

Are. You. Serious?

So what's the hubbub about? Well, as the story goes on,

The Red Cross official said Afghan detainees including Canadian transfers were held in "unsavory conditions," which he then modified to "unsatisfactory conditions."

Oh. I see. The detainee’s prison conditions were "unsatisfactory". That's a hell of a long way from a credible suggestion that detainees were at risk of torture.

The email flagged how sometimes it took the Red Cross up to two months before it received any notification of a detainee transfer from the Canadian Forces.


Again, the Red Cross is never explicitly quoted using words like torture or mistreatment in regards to its concerns.

Let's not be coy, gentlemen... the emails don't even imply that the detainees were being tortured. The sum total of the Red Cross concerns was that they were not given sufficient information to identify detainees and were not given that information promptly enough.

I guess the soldiers were maybe too busy picking up body pieces of their fallen comrades after another gutless IED was laid under their transport. Our bad.

Of course, as the article points out that the Red Cross is above politics and is "the most direct and trusted of sources".

You remember the Red Cross, that's the group that agreed to Arab Countries flying the Red Crescent, but refused to admit Israel for nearly 60 years because they wanted to use the Star of David as their emblem, for obvious reasons.