In this bulletin:

• American Kidnapped in Afghanistan
• Pakistan allowed transportation of Indian wheat flour to Afghanistan
• President Hamid Karzai's search for an envoy to rent
• New Taliban Chief Entering Limelight
• Taliban Leaders in Pakistan
• Pakistani army in onslaught against Taliban chief linked to Bhutto killing
• Afghan ambassador says his country's prison system needs work
• Support for withdrawal from Afghanistan declines, but divisions remain
• Harper stays clear of decision on Afghanistan report
• Extra thousand troops won't come from U.S.: Gates
• Afghan detainees decision surprises allies
• Feds lied about detainees: Dion
• Lawyers say applying Charter rights in Afghanistan would violate sovereignty
• Canada's common sense on Afghanistan

American Kidnapped in Afghanistan

By CARLOTTA GALL and TAIMOOR SHAH - NY TImes

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, — An American woman and her Afghan driver were kidnapped by gunmen in this southern town Saturday morning on her way to work, the provincial governor said.

No one has claimed responsibility for the abduction, he said.

The woman, Sidney Misal, 49, was working for a nongovernmental organization, the Asian Rural Life Development Foundation, and had been living in southern Kandahar since 2002, the governor, Asadullah Khalid, said.

The governor blamed those who were against Afghanistan and its reconstruction for the abduction. “Whoever they are, they’re the enemies of the country, the enemy of Islam and the enemy of Afghanistan,” he said.

The police were searching for Ms. Misal, who was wearing the all-enveloping burqa on her way to work at 8 a.m., Mr. Khalid said.

“This is against Afghan culture to abduct a woman,” Mr. Khalid said. “She trusted the Afghan nation and respected them, that’s why she was traveling without security guards and actually she didn’t ask for security.

“This kind of incident is rare in Kandahar.”

Taliban insurgents and criminals gangs have carried out many kidnappings in Afghanistan, often for ransom. Although most hostages have been released, the Taliban have also killed some foreign hostages.

The most recent case was the kidnapping of 23 South Korean hostages, most of them women, by the Taliban in July. Two men were killed, but the women were released after South Korea reaffirmed a pledge to withdraw its 200 troops from Afghanistan by the end of last year, and there was speculation of a ransom.

Kandahar, the former spiritual capital of the Taliban government, is one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. The Taliban have a broad presence in much of rural southern Afghanistan and have mounted suicide attacks and shootings in the city. Only a small number of foreigners live there, and they move around with extreme caution.

According to a fellow worker at the foundation, Abdul Hamid, Ms. Misal speaks the local language, Pashto, fluently, and had been in Kandahar for six years.

“She has been here since the beginning and was mainly working in education in Kandahar schools, especially for girls, and also working on agricultural projects,” the governor said.

Her organization works closely with Kandahar University, supporting English and computer classes for students and the agriculture faculty. It also runs an agricultural farm and nursery.

Carlotta Gall reported from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar.

Pakistan allowed transportation of Indian wheat flour to Afghanistan

Posted On: Jan 22, 2008

Pakistan will allow the transportation of Indian wheat flour to Afghanistan vie Waga port  Afghanistan recently has asked Pakistan to facilitate the transportation of Indian wheat flour and equipments needed for construction of projects that Indian companies are working in Afghanistan.          

H.E Mohammad Kabir Farahi deputy foreign Minster in political affairs met the Pakistani Ambassador to Kabul they discussed about the issue of transportation of Pakistan wheat flour to Afghanistan.

The Pakistani Ambassador added that Pakistan is ready to provide Afghanistan with the Essential wheat flour through official government channels.

Its worth mention that by the efforts of officials of foreign ministry and continues contacts with officials of Russian federation, Republic of Kazakhstan, the federation of Russia will provide Afghanistan with 3100 ton of wheat flour as an urgent help to Afghanistan and also the Republic of Kazakhstan showed its readiness to export wheat flour to Afghanistan.

The Government of Afghanistan is in contact with several other counties to resolve the Dearth of primary materials.

President Hamid Karzai's search for an envoy to rent

The Times, 01/26/2008 By James Bone in New York

You cannot buy an Afghan, the old joke says, because they are so fiercely independent. But you can rent one. Times move on. Now it is the Afghan president who is trying to find a UN representative he can effectively control.

President Hamid Karzai’s objections to Lord Ashdown taking over as UN supremo in the country are part of an old-fashioned power-struggle that would be instantly recognisable to any village khan - or UN bureaucrat.

With the Taleban resurgent and opium production on the rise, Nato powers are seeking greater control - they call it coordination - of the political and economic aspects of the military campaign.

David Satterfield, America’s Coordinator for Iraq, told The Times this week that Iraq may turn out to be America’s “good war” while Afghanistan goes “bad”.

The Bush Administration has pledged to deploy 3,200 more Marines, complaining that its Nato partners lack counter-insurgency expertise.

In return, the United States hopes other Nato nations, such as Britain and Canada, play a greater role in economic and political reconstruction, from building roads to bolstering local government.

“The struggle in Afghanistan involves warfare, but it is not primarily a military struggle. It is primarily political and economic,” Barnett Rubin, a veteran Afghan expert at New York University, told Congress this week.

As the stakes rise, Nato governments hope to enlist the UN more closely in this “hearts and minds” campaign against the Taleban.

The Western powers have been pushing Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, to name a high-profile figure to replace the departing UN special representative in Kabul. Lord Ashdown, who has already served as international viceroy in Bosnia, fit the bill. But his extensive experience in the role, which allowed him to sack local officials and rescind laws, taught him to demand far-reaching powers that threatened Mr Karzai’s control.

The president had already indicated his impatience with the British role in his country in his ill-tempered outburst on Thursday in which he accused British forces of aggravating the security situation. Both his verbal attack and diplomatic sabotage of Lord Ashdown are intended to weaken the challenge posed by Nato to his grip on power.

Nato nations appeared ready to water down Lord Ashdown’s mandate, but diplomats say the former Royal Marine held firm.

The likely outcome is a UN compromise that puts an underwhelming figure in the job who will play ball - or the Afghan game of “buzkashi” - with President Karzai as the chaos in southern Afghanistan spreads.

Perhaps the best that can now be hoped for is a skilful diplomat who can navigate the twisting valleys of Afghan politics and does not come with the colonial baggage of a Briton like Lord Ashdown, the New Delhi-born son of an Indian Army captain.

New Taliban Chief Entering Limelight

By KATHY GANNON – PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — Sometime in mid-December, as the winter winds howled across the snow-dusted hills of Pakistan's inhospitable border regions, 40 men representing Taliban groups all across Pakistan's northwest frontier came together to unify under a single banner and to choose a leader.

The banner was Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, with a fighting force estimated at up to 40,000. And the leader was Baitullah Mehsud, the man Pakistan accuses of murdering former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

The move is an attempt to present a united front against the Pakistani army, which has been fighting insurgents along the border with Afghanistan. It is also the latest sign of the rise of Mehsud, considered the deadliest of the Taliban mullahs or clerics in northwest Pakistan.

Mehsud is based in the rugged, heavily treed mountains of South Waziristan, one of Pakistan's so-called tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan, where Western intelligence says al-Qaida is regrouping. His organization has claimed responsibility, often backed up by videos, for killing and kidnapping hundreds of soldiers, beheading women and burning schools that teach girls anything other than religion. He also claims he has a steady supply of suicide bombers and strong ties to al-Qaida.

"Al-Qaida has succeeded in building a base in the last two or three years mostly with help from Mehsud," said Ahmed Zaidan, a reporter for Al-Jazeera Television in Qatar who interviewed Mehsud three weeks ago. "They are moving freely in the tribal areas where it is difficult for the Pakistan army to move."

During the interview, Mehsud said in halting Arabic that he had never met Osama bin Laden but knew Abu Musab al-Zarqawi well. Al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in a U.S. air raid two years ago.

Al-Qaida gives Mehsud money and logistical advice, according to one of his Taliban allies, Maulvi Muslim, who spoke to The Associated Press in a voice that barely rose above a whisper and fell silent when a stranger walked by.

The Al-Qaida funds don't always come in cash. Rather, Afghan and Pakistani businessmen — usually in the United Arab Emirates — are given money to buy high-priced goods like cars. The goods are shipped to Pakistan and sold, often tripling al-Qaida's investment. The businessmen, with sympathies to al-Qaida, take a small cut while al-Qaida spreads the wealth among its allies.

The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan share ideological goals but have separate structures, Muslim said. The spiritual head of both is the one-eyed Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of Afghanistan's Taliban before being ousted by the U.S.-led coalition in November 2001 and to whom Mehsud swore allegiance in 2001, according to Muslim.

Mehsud, thought to be in his 40s, is secretive and, like Mullah Omar, hates to be photographed. He is described as devoted to the Taliban and not well educated.

"They say he is free from all vices, walks around covering almost half his face all the time," said Mehmood Shah, a retired Pakistani brigadier who was the government's former point man for the tribal regions. "He is very modest in his manners and polite."

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has also accused Mehsud's men of carrying out most of 19 suicide bombings in Pakistan over just three months. Newspapers quoted him as threatening Bhutto's life, but he denied it, and also denied Pakistani accusations that he was behind her Dec. 27 assassination.

Mehsud is also quoted as saying jihad is the only way to peace, a belief reflected in his history.

Muslim says Mehsud's first battlefield experience was in Afghanistan in the late 1980s against Soviet invaders. His mentor at the time was Jalaluddin Haqqani, a powerful commander in eastern Afghanistan backed by the United States against the Soviets. Now Haqqani is wanted as a terrorist by the U.S. and NATO.

According to both Muslim and another Taliban source, when the U.S. invaded in 2001, Mehsud fought with the Taliban in Shah-e-Kot in eastern Afghanistan. Scores of Uzbek, Tajik and Arab fighters are believed to have escaped from Shah-e-Kot to South Waziristan, where Mehsud rules. The Mehsud tribe is not the largest in South Waziristan, but it has a reputation for being the fiercest.

Mehsud's ascent reflects the failure of Pakistan's army with its U.S. funding to win control of its tribal areas.

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Mehsud was not prominent among the Pakistani militants who supported Afghanistan's Taliban, according to Shah, the former army officer.

"Mehsud was a small fry, but I could see in time he could be of some problem," Shah said. "I was trying to get big tribal people onto the government side and religious people onto the government side to isolate these hard-core types like him."

It was a long process. Pakistan got tribal leaders to put up money or weapons as guarantees that they would keep peace __ a traditional tribal strategy that makes sure one tribe doesn't renege on its promise to another. If they misbehaved, Pakistan tried to strangle their businesses and hammer them with force.

Shah recalled destroying 80 shops belonging to a renegade tribal leader.

At the time, Shah said, Mehsud was not even the definitive leader of South Waziristan. At one point, he became embroiled in a power struggle with another in his tribe, Abdullah Mehsud, an Afghan war veteran who had spent time in U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay. Abdullah Mehsud opposed any agreement with the Pakistani government.

Shah said he made a point of operating within the tribal structures and dealing with the tribal leaders and not the Pakistani Taliban commanders emerging at the time.

But by the end of 2004, the Pakistani army had started negotiations with the militants, Shah said. The pressure to negotiate came from the provincial government of the frontier, a coalition of right-wing religious parties sympathetic to the Taliban and opposed to the Western troop presence in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, whose rule as both Pakistani president and army chief of staff was being challenged in 2004, agreed to talks in exchange for the support of the provincial government. As a result, the Pakistani government on Feb. 7, 2005 signed a peace agreement with Mehsud.

According to Shah, Mehsud's troop strength then went from less than 100 to about 20,000, or roughly half the total thought to be under Taliban command in the northwest region that straddles the Pakistan-Afghan border. The agreement gave Mehsud the time to consolidate his forces and kill pro-government tribal leaders.

"The government policy of appeasement gave Mehsud a free hand to recruit and motivate," said Shah, who described Mehsud as "very cool and calculating."

Within a year of the agreement, Shah said, 123 pro-government tribal leaders were gunned down on Mehsud's orders, accused of spying. Other suspected spies were publicly hanged or beheaded. In the Bajour region of the tribal belt, many residents say they buy Taliban protection by letting one son join its ranks.

Mehsud also negotiated a prisoner exchange with Musharraf in November. Mehsud handed over a couple of hundred soldiers who had surrendered to the Taliban without firing a shot. In exchange, Musharraf gave up 19 men who were in custody on terrorism charges, including a son of Mehsud's mentor, Jalaluddin Haqqani, who had been in Pakistan custody.

Taliban Leaders in Pakistan

Key Taliban leaders in Pakistan:

BAITULLAH MEHSUD: Head of the newly formed Taliban Movement of Pakistan. He has been named by the Pakistan government and the CIA as the man behind the Dec. 27 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. He fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets in 1980s; alongside the Taliban in the 1990s and against U.S. and NATO troops after 2001. Now taking aim at the Pakistan military. From the Mehsud tribe of South Waziristan, near the Afghan border where Western intelligence suggests Al Qaida is regrouping.

MAULVI FAZLULLAH: Uses an illegal FM radio station in Pakistan's picturesque Swat Valley in the northwest to rally supporters to his rigid brand of Islamic rule. Followers have burned down CD shops, girls' schools and launched dozens of suicide attacks against Pakistani police and military. Commander in the Taliban Movement of Pakistan.

FAQIR MOHAMMAED: Based in northwestern Pakistan's Bajour Agency, he is considered a close ally of al-Qaida's Ayman Al-Zawahri. Part of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan but also a key member of the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad's Sharia Law. He has sent hundreds of young men to fight in Afghanistan and has been implicated in dozens of suicide attacks.

SADIQ NOOR: Powerful leader in North Waziristan, where followers have battled Pakistan's military and provided assistance to the Afghan Taliban across the border. He is closely aligned to Afghanistan's Jalaluddin Haqqani, a key eastern Afghan commander who coordinates activities between al Qaida and the Taliban.

MAULVI GUL BAHADAR: The leader behind the deeply flawed September 2006 agreement with the Pakistan military that gave breathing space for the burgeoning Pakistani Taliban. Based in North Waziristan.

Pakistani army in onslaught against Taliban chief linked to Bhutto killing

Declan Walsh in Dera Ismail Khan - Friday January 25, 2008 The Guardian

The Pakistani army has launched a blistering air and ground assault on the mountain stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban commander accused of orchestrating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, as a battle for control of the lawless region near the Afghan border intensifies.

The onslaught follows months of sporadic clashes in Waziristan, where Islamists have embarrassed Pakistani forces in recent weeks, and comes amid growing pressure from the US, which finances the operations against the extremists.

Hundreds of soldiers supported by tanks, helicopter gunships and a multi-pronged artillery barrage encircled Mehsud's home territory in South Waziristan, sending refugees fleeing into North West Frontier province, some on foot. The death toll was heavy but disputed. The army said it killed 40 militants and captured 30. A Mehsud spokesman said he lost seven militants but killed 25 soldiers.

It was the most concerted drive yet against Mehsud, variously tagged as a religious warrior, suicide bombing godfather and the architect of Bhutto's death. Last week the CIA director, Michael Hayden, supported government allegations linking him to the assassination. "This was done by the network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," he told the Washington Post.

Bhutto's party says it fears Mehsud is being used to mask possible official involvement. "It seems to us the government has something to hide," a spokesman said last night.

The assault comes a week after hundreds of Mehsud fighters stormed a military fortification in South Waziristan, killing at least seven officers from the Frontier Constabulary, a lightly armed tribal police force. "It triggered the whole thing," said army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas. "There was an understanding [with the militants] there would be no attacks on security forces. They broke it."

Preparations for the attack included a blockade of fuel and food supplies to Mehsud territory and considerable secrecy. Last week a French journalist who filmed an army convoy rolling towards Waziristan was detained for 24 hours, interrogated, and forced to delete video footage.

The battle zone is barred to foreign journalists and considered too risky by local media, but reports are filtering out. Veteran tribal journalist Sailab Mehsud said the army was attacking with artillery guns stationed at six locations on three sides of Mehsud territory. Two nights ago Mehsud rallied his troops with a radio broadcast, a local source said. "It is an order from God that you continue the fight. You must struggle until your last breath," he said.

The assault coincides with a tour of Europe by President Pervez Musharraf. His previous attempts to negotiate a peace with Waziristan's militants have met with withering criticism from European and US allies. But this operation, conducted under his army successor, General Ashfaq Kayani, has left little room for talk.

"I am calling but the government is not responding," said MP Maulana Mirajuddin Khan, who helped broker previous deals. Speaking from Tank, near the Waziristan border, Khan said that 2,000 people, mostly women and children, had flooded into the town. "They've been coming from all directions for two days," he said. "This is all part of the western agenda."

Local observers are puzzled by the sudden rise of Mehsud, in his 30s and from a poor background. Said to model himself on Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, he reportedly harbours Uzbek and Chechen fighters and, according to unconfirmed reports, recently met the notorious Uzbek commander Tahir Yuldashev in the Waziristan home of Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah.

Last week police in Dera Ismail Khan, 50 miles south of Waziristan, arrested a 15-year-old boy they accused of being part of Mehsud's plot to kill Bhutto. The Guardian obtained a photo of the boy, Aitzaz Shah, yesterday. Bhutto's party rejected news of Shah's arrest as a "cock and bull" story and called for an independent UN inquiry. But the police official who arrested Shah said the catch was genuine. "People think it's a concocted story but it's not," said police chief Akbar Naser Khan. "The information came from a personal source. We picked him up off the street in broad daylight."

Khan denied allegations by human rights groups that the confession may have been obtained through force. "The traditional ways of interrogation here are not applicable to kids. He was taken into confidence and given food," he said.

Fear of the Taliban and the army intelligence agencies stalks the streets of Dera Ismail Khan. Lawyers said dozens of Mehsud tribesmen had been illegally detained in recent weeks. Meanwhile Taliban threats and bombs have closed dozens of internet cafes and music shops.

"People are uneasy, afraid. They don't know what to make of what's happening," said Abdul Hamid Kundi, whose movie store was destroyed in a blast. Other residents were too scared to be interviewed.

Afghan ambassador says his country's prison system needs work

2008-01-25 23:05:40 - TORONTO (AP) - Afghanistan's ambassador said Friday his country's prison system needs work, two days after a Canadian government document revealed that Canadian soldiers stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities after a prison visit yielded evidence of torture.
Ambassador Omar Samad said his government still considers the arrangement between Afghanistan and Canada on the transfer of detainees as being in effect, despite the decision by a Canadian commander to stop the transfer of detainees in early November.
Samad said his government was informed by Canadian officials of that decision this week.
«Afghanistan remains committed to uphold its legal human rights obligations as the country continues to reform its justice and law enforcement sectors, with the aim of preventing any risk of detainee abuse,» Samad said in a statement to The Associated Press. «Any allegation presented so far is under investigation. We also remain mindful of the possibility of deceitful claims by detainees.
Samad said a presidential decree issued this month reinforced the prohibition of human rights abuses in Afghan detention centers.
«Given Afghanistan's three decades of instability, the institutional rebuilding process will require further time, resources, training, education and accountability measures,» Samad said.
The disclosure that Canada stopped handing prisoners over in November comes a year after Canada's Conservative government ridiculed its opponents for raising torture allegations and Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused them of being pro-Taliban.
One prisoner told Canadian officials he had been beaten unconscious, whipped with electrical cables, and belted with a rubber hose at the National Directorate of Security detention facility in Kandahar city in Afghanistan, according to the newly released government letter. The NDS is the domestic intelligence agency of the government of Afghanistan.
The prisoner told the Canadians exactly where they could find the torture instruments and led them to his prison cell where they discovered the hose and cable under a chair. He showed the Canadians a four-inch (10-centimeter) bruise on his back. He said he could not recall who interrogated him because he was knocked unconscious. No prisoner has been transferred since.
The letter was submitted this week by government lawyers to Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association as part of their suit to block further transfers.
Civil libertarians and opposition parties have warned that Canada could be violating the Geneva conventions by turning over captives to Afghan authorities with the knowledge they could be tortured.
A spokeswoman for the prime minister told Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper on Thursday that the military did not inform the Afghan government that they halted the transfer of prisoners, but she said Friday that she misspoke.
Opposition Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Friday he learned more than a week ago that Canadian troops had stopped handing over captured Taliban fighters to local authorities.
He says he was informed of the decision during his visit to Afghanistan _ which began Jan. 12 _ but was sworn to secrecy by the army.
Dion said since he knew, there is no way the Conservative government could have been kept in the dark by the military as the top aide to the prime minister claimed.
Opposition parties are accusing the Conservative government of hiding the truth to avoid political embarrassment.
An independent panel recommended earlier this week that Canada extend its military mission in Afghanistan only if another NATO country puts 1,000 soldiers in the dangerous southern province of Kandahar.
The report comes as the Conservative government is under pressure to withdraw Canada's 2,500 troops from Kandahar province, the former Taliban stronghold, after the deaths of 78 soldiers and a diplomat. The mission is set to expire in 2009 without an extension by Canadian lawmakers

Support for withdrawal from Afghanistan declines, but divisions remain
Canwest News Service Saturday, January 26, 2008

OTTAWA -- The portion of Canadians who want Canadian troops to withdraw from Afghanistan has dropped seven points to 37 per cent in the aftermath of John Manley's report recommending a conditional extension of the military mission in Kandahar, says an Ipsos Reid poll released Friday.

The portion willing to extend the mission if the role shifts from combat to non-combat, such as training Afghan soldiers or police officers, has risen five points to 45 per cent since October.

The poll for Canwest News Service and Global National, conducted as Canadians digested the Manley recommendations earlier this week, suggests Canadians are open to an extension of a mission for non-combat purposes, said pollster John Wright. The 14 per cent of Canadians willing to extend the mission as is remained unchanged.

The pollsters found the majority of Canadians regard the Manley panel recommendations as fair (36 per cent) or good (29 per cent) or great (six per cent). Nearly a quarter (22 per cent) said Manley's proposals are a "bad plan" while seven per cent had no opinion.

Manley recommended an extension of the deployment of the 2,500 troops in Kandahar only if it is bolstered by 1,000 extra soldiers from another NATO country and the troops are equipped with medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles. He proposed a "significant reduction" in combat work in favour of training Afghan forces to handle their own security.

Ipsos Reid reported that Canadians received the Manley report "cautiously," given that regardless of the panel's recommendations, the country remains split - 50 per cent in support and 46 opposed - to the current counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. Those numbers were virtually the same in August.

"This is a report that has not fundamentally altered the underlying support of Canadians for their current positions," Wright, vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said Friday in an interview. "They've basically maintained the same thing for the last couple of years. But what it's done is opened the door to us staying there in another capacity."

The fundamental questions to most Canadians are whether to pull the troops and whether to change their combat role, Wright said.

"Only 14 per cent believe we should be doing the combat mission as we currently are," he noted, "but when you add them to the people who say we should stay and maybe do something different, then you have a full majority of the people in this country believing that to be the case."

The Manley report has not been enthusiastically embraced by the public, he said. People seem to be waiting for further details on what the government plans to do.

"It's not hard against, it's not hard for," he said. "There's no mandate given here for anything except discussion about more details as to what they may do."

The future of the mission, a question which could trigger the defeat of the government and an election this year, has divided Parliament. While the government appointed the Manley panel to find a non-partisan path to political consensus, the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois continue to advocate troop withdrawal and the Liberals want a shift from combat to civilian protection, training Afghan forces and reconstruction of the country.

Ipsos Reid canvassed 1,001 adults by telephone over three days, starting Tuesday, the day Manley delivered his report. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Support for the Manley plan was highest in Atlantic Canada. Albertans were most likely to support troops remaining but shifting to a less combative role. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec residents showed highest support for troop withdrawal.

Residents of Atlantic Canada were the most likely (47 per cent) to say the Manley plan is good or great, followed by those in Ontario (39 per cent), British Columbia (37 per cent), Alberta (32 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (31 per cent) and Quebec (27 per cent). Residents of Ontario (26 per cent) and Quebec (22 per cent) were most likely to say that this is a bad plan for Canadian troops.

Fifty-three per cent of Albertans were the most likely to say that Canada's troops should remain in Afghanistan but be redirected to a less combative role, followed by those in Atlantic Canada (49 per cent), Ontario (47 per cent), British Columbia (46 per cent), Quebec (42 per cent) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (35 per cent).

Residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (42 per cent) and Quebec (41 per cent) were more likely than those living in B.C. (38 per cent), Atlantic Canada (36 per cent), Ontario (36 per cent ) and Alberta (25 per cent) to say that the troops should come home after February of next year.

A majority of residents of Alberta (61 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59 per cent), Ontario (56 per cent), Atlantic Canada (54 per cent) and British Columbia (53 per cent) supported the current mission in Afghanistan. Quebec support (33 per cent) was lowest.

Albertans (18 per cent) were the most likely to want an extension to the current mission, followed by those in British Columbia (15 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (15), Quebec (14), Ontario (13) and Atlantic Canada (nine).

Men (54 per cent) were significantly more likely than women (47 per cent) to support the mission in Afghanistan.

Harper stays clear of decision on Afghanistan report
Canwest News Service , Saturday, January 26, 2008

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed not to let politics dictate his government's decision on the future of the Afghanistan war on Friday, but continued to defer a clear response to the hard-hitting report on the mission by the Manley panel.

"The Manley panel report is a good report-strong, balanced and realistic. I urge you all to read it," Harper said in a campaign-style speech to commemorate his government's second year in power.

"Friends, let me just say this: on a matter of national and global security like this, we will never make a decision based on polls. We will make our decision based on what is right."

The prime minister's remarks come as analysts continue to digest a report on the war by a panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley. The report recommends extending the mission beyond the current expiration date of February 2009, provided Canada can convince its allies to commit more troops. But the report also criticizes the government's management of the mission and urges Harper to take a more active diplomatic role.

Despite his comments, Harper largely steered clear of addressing Afghanistan, an issue sure to be in the spotlight when Parliament resumes Monday. He did not comment on the brewing controversy over the government's decision to halt the transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities.

Instead, the prime minister boasted of his government's record at cutting taxes, reducing Canada's debt, cracking down on crime and strengthening national unity. Harper said it is impossible to predict the timing of the next election, but vowed that his party will "run on our record" when the time comes.

Harper sprinkled his speech with references to his government's ability to manage the economy, another sign that he sees the risk of a downturn as a key issue in the months to come.

"Recent volatility in financial markets, mostly emanating from the United States, may be with us for some time to come. Good jobs are threatened in some of our traditional industries," the prime minister told more than 1,000 supporters gathered at a downtown convention centre, many of them waving white thunder sticks and holding Harper campaign signs.

He attacked the opposition as big spenders, even though federal spending has increased under the Conservatives. "Our opponents will try to make Canadians believe that they can somehow spend the United States out of an economic slowdown," said Harper.

"My friends, their reckless spending would, in one budget, push the country back into deficit, adding to the federal debt and putting upward pressure on interest rates."

Harper also suggested that his opponents would repeal the government's reduction of the GST from seven to five per cent, and implement a "carbon tax" on greenhouse-gas emissions.

"Ordinary Canadians see new and higher taxes as out of touch, out of control and out of bonds. And they know that those new taxes would take Canadians back-and taxpayers in this country will not go back."

The government is expected to table its annual budget as early as next month. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, have suggested that government coffers are less flush than in recent years, but some observers believe the government could roll out more tax cuts in preparation for a possible spring election.

Extra thousand troops won't come from U.S.: Gates
Canwest News Service Saturday, January 26, 2008

The extra 1,000 NATO soldiers for Afghanistan called for in the Manley report won't come from the U.S., that country's defence secretary said Thursday.

There are currently 3,200 more U.S. Marines slated for deployment in Kandahar. But in a Pentagon press briefing Thursday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates reiterated that they will only be there for one non-renewable seven-month term.

"This is a one-time plus-up, this 3,200 Marines that we're sending over there," Gates said. "But I have started a dialogue with my NATO colleagues about falling in behind the Marines when the Marines come out.

" My hope is that, using the vehicles of the meetings in Vilnius and the NATO summit in Bucharest, plus the fact that we're talking about some months from now, may elicit a more positive reaction and provide the kind of additional support . . . the Manley report has just called for."

The report, issued Tuesday by the panel chaired by former Liberal minister John Manley, called for Canada to extend its military mission in Taliban-ravaged Kandahar past its scheduled end date of February 2009, but only if its NATOallies coughed up another 1,000 soldiers to share the burden.

When asked by a reporter whether he thought the Manley target was achievable, Gates replied:"I certainly hope so."

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan Thursday, soldiers bid goodbye to Cpl. Etienne Gonthier, the Canadian combat engineer killed Wednesday in Kandahar when his armoured vehicle hit an improvised explosive device.

Gonthier, 21, was the 78th Canadian soldier and 79th Canadian to die in Afghanistan since 2001.

Afghan detainees decision surprises allies

Canada's move to end transfers to jails in Afghanistan catches NATO off guard

Jan 25, 2008 - Tonda MacCharles Bruce Campion-Smith Toronto Star

OTTAWA–Canada's allies say they knew nothing about a Canadian decision to stop turning over battlefield detainees to the Afghan authorities, and opposition parties in Ottawa are charging cover-up over the whole affair.

Even the independent panel that reported this week on the future of Canada's Afghan mission and called for more transparency from the government was unaware of the policy change.

News of Canada's change in handling prisoners caused surprise both in Washington and at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

"To make a long story short, we went, `Oh, didn't know that!" said Lieut. Col. Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesperson, adding that Canada's decision raises issues for all governments with troops in Afghanistan.

"If you've got bad guys shooting at your forces, and then I'd think you're going take them prisoner, detain them," he said. "Okay, now what? Do you hold him at a field detention site permanently? That's the basic question."

At NATO, which is co-ordinating the Afghan mission, officials only learned about the Canadian about-face through news reports.

"This has all come up today," spokesperson James Appurathai said from Brussels, adding he had no information on how Canada was now handling detainees.

"Our policy within NATO is that within 96 hours, except on very special dispensation from the commander, detainees should be either released or handed over to the Afghan authorities," he said. "We will be in discussion with the Canadian authorities about all of this."

In a letter to two human rights groups this week, federal government lawyers said the military stopped sending suspected insurgents to local Afghan authorities right after a Nov. 5 allegation of abuse by one prisoner. The two groups are in court seeking an order that would force the military to end the handing over of detainees to the Afghans, arguing that prisoners face a reasonable chance of being mistreated.

John Burke, spokesperson for the five-member independent panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, said yesterday the decision to suspend detainee transfers was not communicated to the panel during its three-month study of Canada's Afghan mission.

"When the documents were filed in court this week, that's when the panel first found out about it," said Burke. "They (the panel members) really don't want to comment further on the decision not to hand over detainees. They think that that really now is a matter for the government to deal with."

Opposition MPs are accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government of cover-up and deception for not telling Canadians that it had stopped detainee transfers in Kandahar after the report of abuse.

The bombshell revelation spells more trouble for the minority Conservatives who were already under fire for what the independent panel called governments' lack of "candour" surrounding the mission.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the revelations prove Harper's government has been misleading Canadians about the military's handling of Afghan detainees.

"They should have given this information to Canadians. We asked questions again and again in the House about the possibility of torture and they never answered that they stopped the transfer because of evidence of torture," Dion told reporters at Queen's Park after meeting with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Liberal and New Democrat MPs – who have been pressing the government for months to halt prisoner transfers – reacted with shock yesterday after discovering that the Canadian military had secretly done just that after getting a credible report of abuse from an Afghan jail on Nov. 5.

"Now we know there was a cover-up for the last three months," Liberal MP Denis Coderre (Bourassa) said, vowing that the issue will be front and centre Monday when MPs return to the House of Commons.

"The time has come for the government to tell us the truth," Coderre said in a telephone interview from Berlin. "Canadians deserve answers."

New Democrat MP Dawn Black, the party's defence critic, said she was mocked and derided by the Conservatives for raising questions about the detainee transfers but now her concerns about mistreatment have been proven true.

And she questioned why the Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and Defence Minister Peter MacKay didn't acknowledge the change in policy when quizzed repeatedly in the Commons last fall.

"This is not a government that has kept honour with their word to be open and accountable. They've made these decisions in secret," Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) said by telephone from Vancouver.

Sandra Buckler, spokesperson for Harper, said in an email to the Star yesterday that the military makes "decisions each and every day on operational matters. The Government will not provide any comment on operational matters," beyond pointing to a revised prisoner transfer agreement signed with the Afghan government last May.

Buckler also said that Bernier "proactively disclosed" on Nov. 14 that Canadian officials were notified of an allegation of mistreatment of a prisoner who had been transferred into Afghan custody by the Canadians. A call to the defence department was not returned yesterday.

Last fall, Harper and his ministers stayed mum about the policy change, sidestepping point-blank demands by the opposition to halt detainee transfers. The government said there was no proof of "systematic abuse" and repeatedly said only one case was under investigation.

On Nov. 14, eight days after transfers had apparently been halted, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe pressed the government to take action.

"If serious allegations are made and proof provided, there is a process for verifying and managing these cases. The agreement with the Afghan government works well," Harper replied. - With files from Robert Benzie

Feds lied about detainees: Dion

Sun media – 01.26.08 - Canadian officials told Stephane Dion and fellow MP Michael Ignatieff about the military's decision to stop transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities two weeks ago, the Liberal leader said yesterday.

That means the Conservatives were lying when they said the government was not aware of the change to the controversial policy, Dion told reporters yesterday. "We have been informed of that when we were in Afghanistan," he said, referring to his recent trip with Ignatieff, deputy leader of the Liberal party.

Dion said the two did not reveal the information because they were forbidden to do so by unidentified Canadian officials. But the two MPs argued forcefully to Canada's ambassador in favour of disclosure, he added. However, "we were in Afghanistan with the condition that we not reveal anything" that was deemed to affect security.

Dion accused the Conservative government of deliberately suppressing the information. "When the spokesperson of the prime minister pretended the prime minister was not aware, the government was not aware, I knew that it was a lie," he said.

The issue of Canada turning detainees over to Afghan authorities has been heavily criticized because of evidence the prisoners face torture from their Afghan jailers. The Canadian military stopped the transfers in November, but the policy change wasn't revealed until this week, when a Canadian court began hearing arguments over the practice from human rights groups.

An official in the Prime Minister's Office said Thursday the government hadn't been told of the policy change. But the official, Sandra Buckler, told the Canadian Press yesterday she "mis-spoke."

Defence Minister Peter McKay wouldn't respond to Dion's remarks yesterday, or say when he learned of the decision to stop handing over prisoners. "What Mr. Dion's doing ... if he wants to be irresponsible and talk about briefings he received, that's a decision for him.

"I'm not going to put Canada's soldiers or the people they are protecting in harm's way by talking about operational details of what takes place in theatre," McKay said while awaiting a speech from Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the Ottawa Congress Centre.

Harper, in a partisan address to hundreds of Conservatives to mark the two-year anniversary of his government, did not address the prisoner transfer debate. Instead, he praised Canadians' work in Afghanistan, with particularly warm words for the report on Canada's future role there, released earlier this week by a panel chaired by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.

"The Manley panel report is a good report -- strong, balanced and realistic," Harper said.

The government has not yet given a formal reply to the report's recommendations, which include the need for more troops and equipment if Canada is to succeed in its security mission in Kandahar province.

Lawyers say applying Charter rights in Afghanistan would violate sovereignty

OTTAWA - Federal lawyers argued the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't follow the flag and apply to Afghan war prisoners turned over to local authorities by Canadian troops.

Doing so, said federal attorney J. Sanderson Graham, could create a legal "patchwork" in which prisoners turned over to Afghan officials by the Canadian military enjoyed Charter rights while prisoners held by other countries' armed forces didn't.

And Brian Evernden, another government lawyer, said Canada would be violating Afghanistan's sovereignty by enforcing the Charter in the war-torn country.

At issue during Friday's marathon day in court was which laws - Canadian or international - govern the detention and transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities.

Lawyers for a pair of human-rights groups are fighting for Charter rights to apply to interactions between Canadian troops and their prisoners, even in foreign countries.

But the attorneys for Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association can't just "pick and choose" when and where the Charter applies, Evernden said.

"My friend is not in a position where he can pick and choose the Charter rights at issue," he said. "That is, if good things happen, the Charter does not apply, and if bad things happen, the Charter does apply."

The government lawyers cited a Supreme Court ruling last year against a Canadian businessman who tried to invoke Charter rights while out of the country.

Last June, the court said the Charter couldn't be used to protect Ontario resident Richard Hape from RCMP searches carried out in the Turks and Caicos Islands as part of an international money-laundering investigation.

Amnesty lawyer Paul Champ argued the two cases are different because the Supreme Court case involved the national police force - who largely stay within Canada's borders - while this case involves the military, which has a mandate to operate abroad. Champ said the National Defence Act allows the military to go "anywhere in, or beyond, Canada."

Attorneys for the human-rights groups are seeking a temporary halt to prisoner transfers. Canada quietly stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan officials on Nov. 5 after witnessing credible evidence of torture during a visit to a Kandahar prison.

There, a bruised prisoner told the Canadians he'd been beaten unconscious, whipped with electric cables and belted with a rubber hose. He then told them where they could find the torture instruments, and led them to his prison cell.

Under a chair, they found the hose and cables. Brig.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the court Thursday that the decision to stop transfers was made by the acting commander on the ground in Afghanistan the day after the visit by Canadian officials.

But Evernden argued an injunction against transfers was "moot" since Canada no longer hands over prisoners to Afghan officials.

On Friday, spokeswoman for Harper withdrew an earlier claim that the military had not informed the government of the Nov. 5 change in procedure. And Liberal Leader Stephane Dion acknowledged he had been informed confidentially past year about the change.

Canada's common sense on Afghanistan

Friday, January 25, 2008 By John J. Metzler, Special to The China Post

UNITED NATIONS -- Amid an acrimonious debate over Canada's continuing military presence in Afghanistan, comes a starkly realistic voice of common sense from a leading figure in the political opposition. Thus as key politicians in the Liberal party call for a downgrading of the Canadian commitment to the multinational forces in Afghanistan and bash the ruling Conservatives over that deployment, comes the advice from a former Liberal deputy-Prime Minister to hold the course and not to pull troops out when the mandate ends in 2009.

In a significant independent report on the situation in Afghanistan, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley advised on the risks of the mission which he said cannot be completed by February 2009. He stressed there is no "operational logic" to pulling troops out on that date, and that such an immediate withdrawal would "squander our investment and dishonor our sacrifice to date."

Manley said "We don't believe Canadians need sugarcoating on what's going on and that's why we've said the security situation in Kandahar seems to be deteriorating, not improving." He added, "We think Canadians are quite prepared to undertake things that are tough, things that are difficult, things that are dangerous, but we've got to give them the facts." Manley called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government to urge the international community to "get its act together," both in Afghanistan and with other key countries in the region.

Yet this is not an open ended commitment. The report's key recommendation remains that if Canada does not get more help from its NATO allies, it should serve notice that the Canadian Forces will be withdrawn from the volatile region. The report urges NATO to deploy at least one new battle group, about 1,000 troops, so Canada can concentrate more on training the Afghan army.

Stephen Harper's government remains committed to the multinational military mission in Afghanistan where Canada's contribution of 2,500 troops fighting Taliban fundamentalist insurgents is based in Kandahar province, one of the country's roughest regions. The casualty rate among the Canadians, which has reached 78 killed, is disproportionally high given that this southern sector remains a hotbed of Islamic militants. The troops were first deployed to Afghanistan by Canada's former Liberal government in 2002, but it's the Conservatives that are taking the heat for the ongoing deployment.

Though there are significant NATO forces in Afghanistan; the United States has 15,000 troops which will soon be reinforced by 3,500 Marines; Britain and the Danes have 7,700; the Dutch have 1,500 and the Germans 3,500 among many others, the Canadians are stationed in one of the most exposed and dangerous sectors and need backup.

Now Canada's Liberals and Left are playing a cheap political game, pandering to the polls and to the sages of short term political gain. Speaking in Ottawa, Manley presented an impassioned defense of his report and Canada's global role. "The world isn't a pretty place, but I happen to believe that the people who came before me in the Liberal Party believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage and would say that there are times when we have to be counted, times when it matters."

There's no question that Canada has every right to press for more multinational assistance from NATO. Peter Heinbecker, a former Canadian U.N. Ambassador told Toronto's National Post, "I think to some degree we've been taken for granted." The Ambassador predicts that the ultimatum to NATO "that Canada will quit the mission without new military partner in Kandahar" will work.

Yet the National Post advised editorially, "Even if our allies disappoint us, we must not give up on our mission -- not to mention the Afghan people -- to spite the spineless ... Canada has led by example on the world stage by making sacrifices in the defining struggles of our age -- against Hitler, against communism and now against the scourge of Islamofascism.

We should not deviate from our perfectly legitimate Afghan combat mission just because European backbones tend to bend a little more than do ours."

There's also a lesson here for the United States where the Democratic Party has used the American military commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq as a political football against the Bush Administration. Reflecting on what was once bi-partisan support for American foreign policies, it hardly honors the party of John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey or Mike Mansfield, to allow the fight against al-Qaida and Islamic militants to turn into rowdy partisanship and myopic strategy.

John J. Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He can be reached at jjmcolumn@att.net

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]