You've come a long way, baby

Thirty years ago in 1980, Canada joined the U.S. in a 64 country boycott of the Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

.

Today, under cover of wall-to-wall Olympics news, Canada has joined 15,000 coalition troops in Obama's assault on the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the biggest offensive since the U.S.-led invasion of Afganistan in 2001.

.

900 families have fled ahead of their arrival.

Yesterday 12 civilians including 6 children were killed when two NATO-fired rockets missed their intended target by 300 meters. Gen Stanley McChrystal sent along his regrets. Today five more civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike in Kandahar.

.

The photo shows women university students in Kabul in 1995.
Prior to the CIA-backed civil war in Afghanistan and the beginning of the Taliban rule in the mid 90's, 50% of the students and 60% of the teachers at Kabul University were women. 70% of school teachers, 50% of civilian government workers, and 40% of doctors in Kabul were women.

.

Ass-raping for freedom and prosperity

When Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan complained about young boys being kidnapped and sodomized by Afghan soldiers and interpreters inside Canadian Forward Operating Base Wilson in Kandahar, they were informed by their superiors to look the other way because it was a "cultural difference". One reported incident of "cultural difference" left a young boy with "his bowel and lower intestines falling out of his body", but according to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Servies report this May, it was apparently none of our business.


When Obama rushed through confirmation of Rumsfeld's black ops general to head up the new surge in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal's involvement in the prisoner abuse scandal at Camp Nama, the detention centre he commanded in Baghdad, was questioned but it was apparently none of our business :

"Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. 'Will [the Red Cross] ever be allowed in here?' And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in: they won't have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators."

It was eventually broken open from the inside by brave men like Captain Ian Fishback , Marc Garlasco, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and now with Human Rights Watch, and Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba :

"Yasser tearfully described that when he reached the top of the steps 'the party began. … They started to put the [muzzle] of the rifle [and] the wood from the broom into [my anus]. They entered my privates from behind.' ... Yasser estimated that he was penetrated five or six times during this initial sodomy incident and saw blood 'all over my feet' through a small hole in the hood covering his eyes." – by Physicians for Human Rights' "Broken Laws, Broken Lives," a report containing firsthand accounts of men who endured torture by U.S. personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

In Sodomized to Protect Our Freedoms, Allan Uthman at Alternet questions the motive behind our new obsession with waterboarding :

Would we really need debate on the torture question if we discussed the numerous acts of sodomy instead of the nuances of waterboarding?

Just once, I'd like to hear one of these American Enterprise Institute psychos, the ones that always trot out to defend the neocons' freakish obsessions, have to defend shoving a flashlight up a guy's ass. I want to hear Frank Gaffney or Jonah Goldberg tell me why I shouldn't be fucking mortified that raping prisoners was considered within tolerable interrogation practices by my country. I want Glenn Beck to justify butt-raping a suspect.

What's so sick about it is that the sexual nature of the torture seems so unnecessary. I mean, even if we were going to torture them, we could have stuck to waterboarding, pulling some fingernails or just beating the shit out of them.
But menstrual blood smeared on their faces? Rape? What kind of people do that?

The upshot is this: America is the country that rapes its prisoners. We're sex criminals. That's our thing now. And Obama's refusal to "look back," i.e. prosecute these incredibly serious crimes, ensures that it's our permanent legacy. No national reputation can survive this simply by shrugging it off.

And when we talk about torture, we stick to waterboarding, because nobody, not even the "liberals," are willing to face what we've done.

NYT :

"NATO approved a reorganization of its command structure in Afghanistan on Tuesday to better coordinate the war. The Obama administration wanted the change to improve command efficiency over the NATO forces there, known as the International Security Assistance Force.
NATO agreed to establish a new Intermediate Joint Headquarters in Kabul under an American Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez, to manage the day-to-day war. General Rodriguez will continue to report to the top American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal."

Ass-raping and the torture of children for freedom and prosperity. Is it our business yet?
.

The "Master Narrative" on Afghanistan

Have you ever suspected that the military and politicians who insist on referring to the people we kill in Afghanistan as "insurgents" and who go on interminably about little Afghan girls going to school must all be reading from the same script?

Well, they are.

NATO's Media Operations Centre issues a "Master Narrative"

"designed to assist all those who play a part in explaining the situation in Afghanistan and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission, but especially those who deal with the media."

To wit : "Headline Messages" Oct. 2008

• The Afghan National Security Forces and ISAF are making progress on the ground. The militants¹ do not and cannot hold ground where they are challenged by ANSF and ISAF.


• ¹Opposing Militant Forces is the correct term but is not suitable for use with the media. Depending on the audience and the group being referred to, the phrases militants/insurgents/extremists/Taleban extremists/enemies of Afghanistan may be used.


• The Afghan National Army is a significant success story. It continues to grow in number, competence, and capabilities and is approved to grow to 122,000 by 2012. Today, the majority of operations involving the ANA are Afghan-led.

Lots of talking points on how Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF are NOT THE SAME and the obligatory huzzahs about little girls in school etc. Some of the suggested talking points are puzzling :

• Any talk of stationing or deploying Russian military assets in Afghanistan is out of the question and has never been the subject of any considerations.

while others are just wtf? :

• Polls : Great deal or fair amount of confidence in institutions such as the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police (both more than 80%).


• Poppy-free provinces in 2006: 6, in 2007: 14, planned by the end of 2008: 22 (out of 34).


• More than 4.5 million cell phone subscribers, up from zero in 2001.

Harper appeared to have wandered off the NATO narrative on Friday when he told the WSJ that the Afghan mission is a major NATO test and failure in Afghanistan could have major ramifications for the military alliance. Then, on CNN, taped last Monday :

Canadian PM says Afghan war can never be won

"We are not going to win this war just by staying," Harper said. "My own judgment is, quite frankly, that we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency."

"If we think that we are going to govern Afghanistan for the Afghans or over the long-term be responsible for day-to-day security in Afghanistan and see that country improve, we are mistaken," he said.

Unless of course the "Master Narrative" can be retooled to guarantee "success" :

NATO can't defeat Afghan insurgency, PM says

The United States must come up with a viable Afghan exit strategy before asking Canada to rethink its plan to pull out of the country in 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay told a conference last week that while the combat mission will end in 2011, "that does not mean an end to Canada's role in Afghanistan, by any means. We will reconfigure the mission in a way that allows us to contribute in other ways," he said.

Success in the country is crucial both for Afghans and for Canada's national security, which Canadians must be reminded of constantly, MacKay added.

The issue for Canadians is not "whether we stay or whether we go."
"The issue that Canadians ask is are we being successful," Harper said.

The "Master Narrative" on Afghanistan. Some assembly required.

.

News, propaganda, psy ops - whatever

Press and "Psy Ops" to merge at NATO Afghan HQ :
"(Reuters) - The U.S. general commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan has ordered a merger of the office that releases news with "Psy Ops," which deals with propaganda, a move that goes against the alliance's policy, three officials said.
The move has worried Washington's European NATO allies -- Germany has already threatened to pull out of media operations in Afghanistan -- and the officials said it could undermine the credibility of information released to the public.
NATO policy recognizes there is an inherent clash of interests between its public affairs offices, whose job it is to issue press releases and answer media questions, and that of Information Operations and Psy Ops.
Information Operations advises on information designed to affect the will of the enemy, while Psy Ops includes so-called "black operations," or outright deception
The new combined ISAF department will come under the command of an American one-star general reporting directly to McKiernan, an arrangement that is also against NATO policy, the NATO official said.
"What we are seeing is a gradual increase of American influence in all areas of the war," the NATO official said. "Seeking to gain total control of the information flow from the campaign is just part of that."

Why are we in Afghanistan?

US airstrike that killed 90 Afghan civilians based on false tip
"Afghan police arrested three people and accused them of providing the false tip that led to last month’s disastrous US air strike in Herat Province which a UN investigation determined killed at least 90 civilians and strained ties between NATO forces and the Afghan government.

The US claimed to have targeted and killed a known militant commander in the strike along with 30 militants, but villagers insist that the information that led to the strike was provided to the US by a rival tribesman named Nader Tawakil, whom the US has placed under protective custody.

After the incident, the United States denied that civilians were killed and accused villagers who spoke of the higher death tolls of spreading “outrageous Taliban propaganda“. They continued their denials well after both the United Nations and several investigations by the Afghan government all found similar numbers of slain civilians, but promised to “review” its initial claims after a video emerged showing a large number of dead civilians in the village mosque in the wake of the attack."

NYTimes : "The operation, conducted by U.S. Special Forces and Afghan soldiers, targeted Afghan employees of a British security firm and their family members."


This sad story serves as a microcosm for the whole Afghanistan adventure - the invasion of a country based on a pretext, lies about military success amid the mounting civilian casualties, the reframing of the invasion as a mission of peacekeeping in which the recipients of our largesse refuse to co-operate.

Remind me, why are we in Afghanistan?

Whitehouse press conference, Sept 10, 2008 :
Q But Osama bin Laden is the one that -- you keep talking about his lieutenants, and, yes, they are very important, but Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 --
MS. PERINO: No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and he's sitting in jail right now.

Bombing them back to the throwing stones age

CRAWFORD, Texas (AFP) - "The United States expressed regret Sunday for any civilian deaths from US-led military operations in Afghanistan, without confirming reports of nearly 90 killed in one incident this week.
"We regret the loss of life among the innocent Afghanis who we are committed to protect," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said as US President George W. Bush spent time on his Texas ranch."


Initially "US-led coalition forces denied killing any civilians" in Thursday's airstrike.
The next day they thought there might be five.
An Afghan minister who visited the area put the civilian death toll at 90, a human rights group at the scene estimated it at 78 and the Interior Ministry reported 76 noncombatants dead, including 50 children.

The attacks sparked angry protests on Saturday from locals, who set fire to a police vehicle and waved banners reading “Death to America”.
A school principal and police official said Afghan soldiers tried to hand out food and clothes Saturday in Azizabad — the village where the U.S.-Afghan operation took place Thursday. But villagers started throwing stones at the soldiers, who then fired on the Afghans and wounded up to eight.

Karzai responded by firing two top Afghan commanders for "negligence and concealing facts". The operation was led by Afghan National Army commandos with air and ground support from the coalition, including a US C130 gunship overhead.

Meanwhile, as reported over at The Hill Times, in an article you should really read in full ...

The Sunday Times reported on Aug 17 that the U.S. is planning an 'Iraq-style troop surge' after Americans take over the Afghanistan mission in January.

Janice Gross Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto : "What the United States is talking about is integrating the missions. They recognize that there are serious difficulties arising because there are two separate missions in Afghanistan now, and have been from the beginning: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and the International Security Assistance Force. Right now there are two Americans in command of both, and what they are talking about is integrating the bulk of the American troops, who are in Operation Enduring Freedom."

Chris Sands, a senior fellow at The Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C., [rightwing]think tank (italics mine):
"Canadians are rather conflicted about why they're in Afghanistan. Some people saw this as an apology for not going to Iraq [and] some people actually genuinely think that being in Afghanistan is about helping the Afghan people, and if that's your position then I'd think this is all good, because it's going to be more help and more substantive help."

Some people actually genuinely think it's about helping the Afghan people, he says.

Mr. Sands goes on to explain that the Americans will bring "U.S. professionalism" and "some of the success from Iraq into the Afghan theatre as well".

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said he "believes an increased American presence will have "disastrous" results on the ground that will have long-term implications for the people of Afghanistan" due to "the American tactic of aerial bombings where there are civilians" because "that's the way they do things".
He also expects "the Conservative government to "lowball" the degree of American involvement."

"The Hill Times inquired with communication shops at both the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs about an increased American presence in the NATO-led mission, however neither responded.
Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Alta.), the Parliamentary secretary to the Foreign Affairs Minister, and Conservative MP Wajid Khan (Mississauga-Streetsville, Ont.), a member of the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, were also contacted, but staff for both MPs said they were unavailable for comment."

But in Calgary, Harper had a statement :

"I join with Canadians who stand proudly in support our men and women of the Canadian Forces as they courageously risk their lives every day to bring peace and security to the people of Afghanistan. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. We will honour their sacrifice by continuing on with this vital mission. Canada's commitment to peace and security in Afghanistan remains resolute. We will not allow the Taliban to deter us from continuing to help Afghans rebuild their country."

Or bombing them back to the stone age.
How long are we going to let Harper get away with this charade of pretending to be one of the fools who "actually genuinely think that being in Afghanistan is about helping the Afghan people"?

US to take over Afghan mission, Taliban threatens Canadian aid workers

Times Online : "The United States is planning to take control of all military operations in Afghanistan next year with an Iraq-style troop surge after becoming frustrated at Nato’s failure to defeat the Taliban.

Plans are being drawn up to send as many as 15,000 extra troops to Afghanistan with a single US general always in command, as in Iraq, defence sources said. The Pentagon is also pushing for a permanent “unified command” in the south of the country that would sideline the Dutch and the Canadians.

The surge will also see US and other coalition special forces, which operate separately from the Nato command, absorbed into a single US command for the whole of Afghanistan."

Bush to Harper and Nato : I'm in charge here.

So can we go back to calling it Operation Enduring Freedom again now?

CBC : Canadians face more attacks, Taliban warns

"Just days after insurgents shot and killed two Canadian aid workers in eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban is warning similar attacks will occur.
The extremist group issued the warning in a letter posted on the internet, and the CBC confirmed its authenticity on Sunday after talking to Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid in Kandahar province:

"The Afghans did not go to Canada to kill Canadians. Rather it is the Canadians who came to Afghanistan to kill and torture the Afghans to please the fascist regime of America," the letter said."

Meanwhile, the Canadian International Development Agency CIDA has quietly revised its grant agreements to further shield the government from responsibility when aid workers are killed even as they told some organizations that they are more likely to receive funding for projects based in Kandahar, one of the most dangerous provinces in the country :

"Canada "shall not be liable for any losses, claims, damages, or expenses relating to any injury, disease, illness, disability or death of the employees or subcontractors of the organization alleged to be caused as a result of performing the agreement."

Nice. Stay tuned for Steve to nonetheless proclaim that Canada supports the troops, will not cut and run...

Notes on the Kandahar prison break

NYT : Taliban Free 1,200 in Attack on Prison
"In a brazen attack, Taliban fighters assaulted the main prison in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar on Friday night, blowing up the mud walls, killing 15 guards and freeing around 1,200 inmates. Among the escapees were about 350 Taliban members.

The prison was recently the scene of unrest, with some 400 prisoners staging a hunger strike in May to protest their long detention without trial. Some had been held for as long as two years without trial, and some were being refused the right to appeal very harsh sentences, they said. More than 40 of the prisoners stitched their lips together with needle and thread to demonstrate their determination.

Some 300 women who came to protest outside the prison at the time said their relatives inside had been picked up by NATO and American military sweeps and were innocent but nevertheless held without trial for months and even years."

G&M : "The crumbling bricks of Sarpoza, the largest detention facility in Kandahar province, usually contain hundreds of inmates, from hardened Taliban prisoners to women whose only crimes were running away from their husbands."

Independent : "The country's prisons have been heavily criticised for the lawlessness inside their own walls. British officials in Kabul have warned that the capital's main jail risks being overrun by its inmates. There have been a series of riots where guards have lost control of entire wings for days at a time."

CBC : "A spokesman for the Canadian Forces, said troops were on the scene and had established a security perimeter in the vicinity.
"We believe the situation is under control,” Janzen said, without elaborating.

But Wali Karzai, president of Kandahar's provincial council and the brother of President Hamid Karzai, said "all the prisoners escaped. There is no one left."

Canada has spent $1 million on improvements to the facility, including new cell blocks and new windows."

Operation Enduring Freedom From Difficult Facts

It was back in October when we first heard about US Marines relocating from Iraq to Afghanistan :

"The US Marine Corps has insisted that its forces be removed from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan instead to take the lead in combat there.
According to senior military and Pentagon officials, the suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defence Secretary Robert M Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders, the New York Times reported.
This would leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while the Marines would play an important role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command."


Then came the Manley panel report and the whole drama of Harper's conditions for staying on in Afghanistan - where oh where would the 1000 extra troops and air power evah come from? - and now the US Marines are indeed relocating to Afghanistan as planned and Operation Enduring Freedom is in da house!


CBC : Afghanistan joint command
"There were sighs of relief in government circles earlier this month when the United States agreed to provide at least an additional 1,000 marines to the Canada-led mission in Kandahar.
Finding an extra 1,000 combat soldiers to help the 2,500-strong Canadian military mission in troubled southern Afghanistan was a key Canadian condition — along with more air power — for keeping our troops there until the end of 2011."


Way to keep up, CBC. I do believe we've already bitched that one.

But in what CBC refers to as the "new, more side-by-side relationship between American and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan", a few questions arise about our differing policies. Quite apart from how the command structure is supposed to work, there's the American propensity for wiping out marijuana and poppy crops, ie Afghani livelihood; their greater reliance on air strikes, ie bombing Afghan civilians; and the little matter of their torturing detainees/POWs, ie Bagram., the US internment facility where Afghan detainees known to be innocent of any crimes are beaten to death.

Uh-oh - detainees. This issue is already a big optics headache for Harper in Canada, and news that detainees might fall under US - Canadian joint jurisdiction is going to play badly for the Cons.
But wait!


CTV : Ottawa hopes to block probe into Afghan detainees :
"The government is seeking to block an independent investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission into Canada's handling of Afghan detainees, according to court documents filed in Federal Court.
Amnesty International Canada and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association filed a complaint with the commission last year, after allegations surfaced that detainees had been tortured by local Afghan authorities.
Government lawyers filed an application Friday to halt the investigation, saying the commission does not have jurisdiction to probe the complaints."

Something they might have mentioned at any time since the commission began its investigation.
And as Pogge points out, if the commission doesn't have jurisdiction, why has the government of Canada been complying, however reluctantly, with its demands for documentation up till now?

Possibly because now we're under deadline to align our Operation Enduring Freedom From Difficult Facts policies with those of the US before the 'partnership' begins in July - that's why.

Manley : "Winning the hearts and minds"

Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley in Tuesday's G&M : "...the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan was a roaring success. Embraced by the government, it provided the Official Opposition enough room to be able to reach a consensus with the government."

Thanks for spelling that out, John.Yes, we did realize the main purpose of your panel of hawks and deep integrationists was to give the Libs the necessary cover to be able to vote with the Cons to continue Operation Enduring Freedom. As Thomas Walkom put it back in October :

"It is not about Afghanistan. It is about the US.

In 2004, Paul Martin's Liberal government decided that the best way to keep Washington happy was to commit combat soldiers to Afghanistan.
In effect, he decided to risk Canadian lives in Kandahar to keep trucks rolling across the Detroit River. As did Harper."

But, as Manley explains, we could be doing so much more in "winning the hearts and minds"!*

"To get the needed results, we recommended that the Prime Minister personally lead a diplomatic initiative, making Canada's voice heard to a degree commensurate with our sacrifice. The objective would be not simply additional troops in Kandahar, but a comprehensive political-military plan for NATO, the UN and participating countries."

World stage! World stage! Putting Canada on the world stage!

Plus that definite termination date is apparently totally negotiable :

"Afghanistan's development and governance challenges will not be fully met by 2011. Let's hope it's not necessary to create another panel in 2010 to advise on Canada's role after 2011."

*Yes, he really did say "winning the hearts and minds"

"Operation Enduring Freedom"

aka the occupation of Afghanistan, aka "The Mission", will be extended for another two years to 2011.
As expected it was the ConservaLiberals vs the NDP and the Bloc by a vote of 198 to 77. Only one lone Liberal, Newfoundland MP Bill Matthews, and Blair Wilson, the Sea-to-Sky Lib MP currently sitting as an Independent, showed up to vote against it.
20 Libs were absent.
An NDP amendment seeking a diplomatic solution for immediate withdrawal was defeated 244 to 30 just prior to the vote.

Well at least attendence was up this time round and more MPs came to the debate.

Flashback to the Great Parliamentary Afghanistan Debate of 2006. : In April 2006, out of a possible attendance of 308, there were 58 Conservative MPs dropping to 14 after O'Connor finished speaking; 21 Liberals dropping to 10; 2 Bloc Quebecois; and 8 NDP rising to 20.

Yesterday Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the vote "demonstrates that our democracy works", while Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier said Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have a stronger mandate to push allied countries at a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, early next month.

Well done, CAE Inc., General Dynamics Canada, SNC-Lavalin, Bell Helicopter Textron, Bombardier, and of course, ConservaLiberals. See you for another warbiz renewal vote in 2010!

Operation Enduring Freedom is in the House

The Cons are pissed the other parties don't want to debate the Manley report on Afghanistan in committee :

Mike Wallace, Con : "Canadians deserve a frank and constructive dialogue on this extremely important issue. Shockingly, the Liberals and the other opposition members voted against openness, frankness and transparency."

Peter MacKay, Con, Min. of Defence : "It seems perfectly logical that members opposite who have been calling for a more open, transparent and substantive debate on the subject of Afghanistan would welcome the opportunity....it seems logical that they would want to have a realistic and substantive debate rather than suggest that the committee should just gloss over these issues.

MacKay then called on Dion to "unleash his members" and let them vote on having a debate, after which Foreign Affairs' Maxime Bernier contributed an openly, a transparently, and two honestlies to the discussion which began on Friday with a couple of shockings and Deepak Obhrai asking, "Why are they afraid of Mr. Manley?

Look, assholes, Canadians do want a debate on whether to continue with Operation Enduring Freedom and they want it held in the House where all members can speak to it.
What Canadians are not interested in is having Manley's little retread of a paper he first wrote three years ago (thank you , Scott Ross) go off to a committee that has already investigated and debated the OEF debacle far more frankly, constructively, openly, transparently, realistically, honestly, and substantively than anything you guys have come up with on your own so far.

Hansard Monday bonus. Harper gives us his verdict on the Canadian workers' report showing that the governor of Kandahar province is suspected of torture : "There is no credible evidence in this case."

Enduring freedom is hard work.

The Great Parliamentary Afghanistan Debate

Harper wasn't there. Neither was Duceppe.
Not only was there no vote, there was no debate either.

Out of a possible 308 MPs:
58 Conservative MPs, dropping to 14 after O'Connor finished
21 Liberals but dropped to 10
2 Bloc Quebecois
8 NDP, rising to 20

Fucking shameful.
Especially as Canadians are divided about 50/50 over whether we should be there at all.

Here is one reason we are just a bit concerned:

"Canadian soldiers could be charged with war crimes in the International Criminal Court because of an agreement the government approved on the handling of detainees captured in Afghanistan," warns UBC international law professor Michael Byers.
University of Ottawa Prof. Amir Attaran, a constitutional human rights law specialist, agrees. Under international law Canada has an obligation to ensure any detainee is protected against torture, not only when they are transferred into Afghan custody but if they are sent onwards to a third nation, such as the U.S.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said last week he is satisfied with the pact, as is Opposition leader Bill Graham, who was the Liberal's defence minister when the agreement was signed in Kabul in December.
Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier signed the agreement even though the Afghan government's own human rights commission warned in 2004 that the torture of prisoners is "routine."
So far, more than 100 detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan have died in U.S. custody.

Canadian military officers, however, have continually said they are confident any detainees turned over to the U.S. would be treated humanely."

Here's another reason, from the Government of Canada National Defense website :

"On November 29, 2005, Camp Julien, which was the Canadian base of operations in Kabul, officially closed. Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan, were relocated to Kandahar in the southern region of Afghanistan as part of the United States-led campaign against terrorism known as OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM ( OEF )."

And Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor had the unmitigated gall to open the proceedings with Bush's "Fly-paper" analogy :

"Fighting terrorists in Afghanistan is better than waiting until they show up in vancouver, Montreal or Ottawa, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the Commons on Monday.
"Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest,'' he said. "Our security begins very far from our borders. "
.