”Transfer of notifications to the Red Cross took up to a month. We lost track of hundreds of detainees,” he told the House of Commons. ”When the Afghan authorities claimed detainees were released, we did not verify. Our own monitoring was erratic and allegations of torture were numerous.”

Dion said one detainee sent for interrogation to the Afghan secret services was likely a victim of abuse and death threats.

”What will the government do to ensure that in the future our mechanism to protect detainees is transparent, effective and worthy of Canada?” asked Dion.

Baird rejected Dion’s claim that the Canadian-transferred prisoner was likely abused.

But records disclosed Wednesday show Canadian officials in Afghanistan who interviewed detainees transferred by Canadian Forces filed reports in 2007 noting allegations of beatings, sleep deprivation and verbal abuse.

A year-long, multimillion-dollar probe has failed to resolve one of the most heated political questions ever to dog the Harper government: Did Canadian soldiers knowingly hand over Afghan prisoners to torture?
The Conservatives had hoped a multi-partisan effort to sift through documents – which concluded Wednesday – would finally put to rest one of the most divisive subjects of their tenure.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor says he will investigate war crime allegations against Canadians over the handling of Afghan detainees if Canada won’t.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo says in a documentary soon to be aired on TVO that Canadian officials are not immune to prosecution if there is evidence that crimes were committed by handing over detainees to face torture.

When Toronto filmmaker Barry Stevens asked Moreno-Ocampo in his film, Prosecutor, if the ICC would pursue a country such as Canada over its role in Afghanistan, he replied: “We’ll check if there are crimes and also we’ll check if a Canadian judge is doing a case or not … if they don’t, the court has to intervene. That’s the rule, that’s the system, one standard for everyone.”

Moreno-Ocampo could not be reached for further comment about the case Thursday when attempts were made by the Star.

Officials at the Department of Justice and Department of National Defence were unable to comment Thursday and said they had not seen the film.

Some legal experts have suggested the Canadian government’s dismissal of calls to launch a judicial probe into the allegations has left the door open for outside scrutiny.

The issue, we recall, turns on whether Canadian officials knowingly handed over prisoners for torture by Afghan authorities, a potential violation of the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Harper’s government steadfastly refused to provide documents on the matter, but were ordered to do so a year ago by Speaker Peter Milliken. A special committee was then appointed to make sure any released materials wouldn’t compromise national security.

Bryon Wilfert, a Liberal member of the committee, said Monday that a swath of documents are to be made public by mid-campaign. But he suspects Team Harper might pull a fast one, such as a court appeal to delay a process that has already been long delayed.

In fact, the Conservatives have just done this very thing in a bid to thwart another avenue of disclosure. The Military Police Complaints Commission has been preparing a report on the detainees controversy. But last week, as reported by The Canadian Press, the government quietly went to the Federal Court to try and impose limits on what the military watchdog can say.

Remember the detainee documents? The ones that might answer the question of whether Canadian officials knowingly sent Afghans to face a substantial risk of torture?

A year is a long time in politics. Memories are short. That’s how politicians get away with stuff. Accountability delayed is accountability denied.

Here’s a recap. In December 2009, after months of disturbing but incomplete information trickling out in a committee, the House of Commons passed a motion ordering the government to release uncensored documents pertaining to the handling of Afghan detainees. The government, arguing that releasing the documents would compromise national security, said no. When the Afghanistan committee met on Dec. 15, the Conservative members just chose not to go, arguing that the issue was not “urgent” enough to interfere with the Christmas season (a season that begins earlier for MPs than for most of us “hardworking Canadians,” apparently).

At the end of that month, the prime minister prorogued Parliament for the second year in a row. MPs didn’t get back to work until March, ostensibly so they could all pay attention to the Olympics.

In a privilege ruling once MPs finally got back to work, Speaker Peter Milliken said it would be a “signal failure” if the two sides of the House proved they lacked “the will or the wit to find a solution to this impasse.”

So last May, the parties agreed to have a panel of three judges review the documents and advise a special committee, in secret, on how to disclose bits of them to the public. All involved agreed it was a great day for democracy. Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale called it “a victory for Parliament and Canadians” and Prime Minister Stephen Harper said “I think it serves everybody’s purposes and it’s a good day for Parliament.”

Canada has lost its standing as a world leader in pressing for human rights, in part by taking a one-sided view on Middle East rights issues, Amnesty International says.

That judgment, according to Amnesty’s global secretary-general Salil Shetty, is the cumulative effect of several moves in recent years, including a reluctance to sign new UN rights declarations, avoiding accountability for the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, and a failure to stand up for the rights of Canadians accused abroad, such as Omar Khadr, the Canadian detained in Guantanamo Bay.

This Memorandum of Understanding of the particulars of the Afghan detainee documents deal was tabled in the House of Commons today.

While its title suggests that it’s an understanding between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton, it ends without a space for Layton’s signature. The NDP refused to endorse the deal.

Steven Chase and Jane Taber

Allowing a select group of MPs to look over between 20,000 and 40,000 pages of secret documents relating to Afghan detainees is one option now being considered under all-party talks in the dispute.

Bloc Quebecois MP Pierre Paquette confirmed this option after the second such meeting broke up this morning on Parliament Hill.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said it is possible each party could submit one MP to such a committee. “We’re all on the same page. We’re all talking about the same thing,” he said.

His colleague, justice critic Joe Comartin noted, however, that it could take months to read all of the documents.

The High Court has heard claims that suspected insurgents were seized by UK troops and handed over to the Afghan authorities, who then tortured them.

At least eight men transferred by the Army to the Afghan Security Service, the NDS, say they were mistreated.

One claims he was told he would be shot if he did not sign a confession; others say they were given electric shocks and were beaten with cables and sticks.

The UK Government has denied there is evidence of widespread abuse.

Between July 2006 – when they entered Helmand province – and September 2009, the British Army transferred more than 300 suspected insurgents to the NDS.

This policy is unlawful, according to lawyers for the claimant – a peace activist from Sussex – who have called for transfers to the NDS to cease.

Michael Fordham QC said this is “a very troubling picture of a clutch of cases from those who feel able to speak”.

This is probably true. The rest is false and/or crazy, but it is almost certainly true that America, Britain and the UN are constantly trying to undermine Afghan sovereignty. He is in real danger of being pushed out whenever he deviates from the occupier’s “Party line”.

This outburst to me seems like another example of real grievances being manifested as utter craziness.

First, in seemingly off-the-cuff remarks to election workers, he accused the allies of “massive fraud” during last year’s presidential poll, claiming America, Britain and the United Nations were all plotting to undermine him. That was, to say the least, a bold rewriting of history: the Election Complaints Commission, a hybrid Afghan-international watchdog that Mr Karzai has tried to seize control of, found evidence of industrial-scale fraud last year in the president’s favour.

Next, after the American ambassador had demanded “clarification” of what on earth Mr Karzai was talking about, the president went further, telling a private meeting with members of Parliament that if foreign interference continued he would “join the Taliban”. Finally, in Kandahar for talks with elders about this summer’s military operations, he reaffirmed that he meant every word of his original outburst.

Mr Karzai depends on international support for his survival, so is he going completely mad? Rumour in Kabul suggests that yes, he might be. Abdullah Abdullah, the opposition leader and an ophthalmologist by training, describes the president’s behaviour as “erratic” and says that “as a former colleague and doctor, I think this is beyond a normal attitude”. Peter Galbraith, the former deputy head of the UN mission in Kabul (who had been singled out by Mr Karzai for his role in the alleged plot), said the president’s tirades raised “questions about his mental stability” and that he had (according to palace insiders) “a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan’s most profitable exports”. Mr Karzai’s team promptly called Mr Galbraith a liar. The diplomat offered no evidence for his assertions, which were also dismissed by the White House.”