Steve Janke digs into the background of Dr Amir Attaran who alleges that detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information and that he has uncensored documents proving it. (see CBC story here)
Janke finds out that the good doctor just happens to owe Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a big favour for defending him when he was about to be kicked out of the Carr Center:
“Amir Attaran, now Canada research chair in law, population health, and global development policy at the University of Ottawa, was a research fellow at the Kennedy School during Mr. Ignatieff’s time at the Carr.
He ran afoul of an influential faculty member and the school’s administration over a line of academic inquiry he insisted on pursuing, and found himself about to be booted out.
He brought his troubles to Mr. Ignatieff, who gave him office space and mentoring support until he could find another academic home. “Michael stuck up for me against some extremely nasty attacks,” Prof. Attaran says.”
Update: Thank you to a reader that sent me some more info on Amir Attaran. His name was brought up during the 2008 leaders’ debate (see here).
Also: See here for the reason why Attaran was about to get fired and Michael Ignatieff’s defense of him to Harvard officials.
BC Blue: One BC Conservative's view on it all... 
March 6, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Could this be a liberal Rathergate.
March 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM
So what! Does this make Harper right?
March 6, 2010 at 3:17 PM
The partisanship of the “expert” is fair criticism. Would he be qualified to sit on a panel with his views and friendship on this matter with his past?
According the opposition members that is a REASON to disqualify you for future employment with the government.
March 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Maybe not. But it certainly shows collusion.
March 6, 2010 at 7:03 PM
so you are willing to overlook Ignatieffs possible collusion with a man who is willing to lie in order to wipe out a debt?
Liberals really have no integrity at all.
March 6, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Great work! Attack the source instead of the content. Infallible strategy!
March 6, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Content…?? Nothing has been produced by him as of yet.
March 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Why have the other media outlets ignored repeating this allegation?
Is evidence, proof, documents no longer a valid requirement for journalists at some television stations?
March 6, 2010 at 7:09 PM
the way i see it, if this professor actually had the documents he claims he saw, they would be all over the news right now… he claims he saw them, but the opps haven’t? this is a lie IMO…
And if he has, where did he steal them from? he should be pulled into court and made to testify under oath that he saw those classified documents and how he obtained them…otherwise he is just blowing smoke..
March 6, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Agreed, they are just making allegations without providing actual evidence.
March 6, 2010 at 2:28 PM
What content John, perhaps you internet trolls should hand out copies of those mysterious documents the libs keep refering to? Also if the Libs and their Media plants already know what Harper is going to release why not just hand it to the media or twitter it like in the past? Smearing our military with inuendo and infering this that and the other thing, if MSM had a backbone they’d out the Liberal Media Plants big time.
Wonder what Sir Whine Alot was investigating when he got booted?
March 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM
You mean the mysterious documents the Conservatives refuse to hand over to parliament in violation of the constitution?
March 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM
“…the mysterious documents..” are you suggesting the government is doing the redacting or the Civil Servants trained in those matters?
Can you be very specific what documents you are asking about?
It is my understanding thousands of documents have been made available and a new person will be appointed to lead the MPCC.
Do you have evidence to demostrate otherwise?
March 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM
the constitution does not always trump matters of national security..if you think it does, just look at the FLQ crisis and the war measure act that was enacted by Trudeau…
March 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2003-March/004425.html
i am sure there are a lot of connections
March 6, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Wow, Janke’s blog is an eye opener. good investigating by all.
March 6, 2010 at 2:54 PM
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=9f230848-bbd6-441e-a8e7-ae7f893e7a87
is this the same guy??
March 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Yes, it is, thank you for sending it.
March 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM
“Michael stuck up for me against some extremely nasty attacks,”
Why doesn’t the MSM pick up on this? I heard Amir on the news and wondered why he was their ‘go to’ person.
Pathetic; he has no credibility at all!
March 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Considering that Mr. Ignatieff is a world renowned human rights expert, and that contrary to conservative spin, universities are deeply political places, my guess is that Mr. Ignatieff was probably taking a leadership roll in a rights violation.
March 6, 2010 at 3:58 PM
You’d be wrong with that guess…check out the update on the post as to why he was going to get fired.
March 6, 2010 at 3:57 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH.. shooting the messenger is getting so boring.
Parliament has the constitutional right to have access to uncensored documents. The Supreme Court and an actual sitting Judge will confirm what everyone with a Parliamentary system already knows. I repeat, Parliament has the constitutional right to have access to uncensored documents.
The PM is in contempt- he is unfit to govern.
March 6, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Shooting the messenger is not taking place. Pointing out his friendships and past employment are statements that you can refute with links.
Do you have links to refute his friendship with Michael Ignatieff?
March 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM
“Parliament has the constitutional right to have access to uncensored documents.”
Well that’s simply not true. The Parliamentary system has never required the government to give any and all uncensored documents to parliament. Parliament may or may not have the right to uncensored versions of *these* documents, but that’s not what you said.
At a guess though, I doubt it. Our system does actually give an inordinate amount of power to cabinet and the Prime Minister. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but historically it has. Of course members of Parliament aren’t supposed to be compliant yes men and they don’t have to be. A vote of no-confidence is fairly easy to arrange. Mr. Harper can ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament, but he cannot avoid a confidence motion indefinitely.
March 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM
This is all beside the point. The gov’t MUST hand over all documents requested by parliament. Any sane person has to realize that their refusal to do so is very suspicious. Claims of national security are irrelevant. They are constitutionally obligated to hand over the documents to parliament, regardless of the sensitivity of the documents. It’s the law. Period.
March 6, 2010 at 4:23 PM
syas who?
March 6, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Determining if an expert or witness has an agenda, credible, bias is NOT besides the point. It is NORMAL to investigate and look for reasons if ANY that this person for his motivation.
Why do you think he is motivated in making these allegations?
Has he made any allegation regarding any abuses in any other cases? Is he getting paid for his contribution and opinion?
March 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM
I’m more interested in the government’s motivations for not producing the documents as ordered by parliament.
March 6, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Indeed. Refusing to hand over the documents does nothing but make them look bad. I don’t buy the “national security” angle for one moment. The best I’d give them is that they simply reflexively say no and now they’re being stubborn.
If they were serious about the national security angle, they could easily defuse it. They could simply show them to Michael Ignatieff and a very select number of highly placed people in the liberal party personally and announce publicly that they think they should keep them to himself. If they do so, then I’ll buy the national security line. If they don’t and we can then show that there IS a national security concern then the Liberals will pay dearly for that.
The United States does similar things all the time with bi-partisan oversight committees and it works just fine.
Don’t give them to Jack Layton or Hedy Fry.
March 6, 2010 at 4:10 PM
As a disaffected Conservative, this issue disgusts me. I have supported the Afghan mission as a commitment to our American ally and a NATO commitment. Ignoring, and now apparently even advocating the use of beatings, electrocutions and whippings is a violation of another international commitment: the Geneva Accord. Now in obfuscating the work of the committee and intimidating witnesses, only exacerbates the issue. That is the point. Attacking a professor does not change that.
March 6, 2010 at 4:29 PM
“Ignoring, and now apparently even advocating the use of beatings, electrocutions and whippings is a violation of another international commitment: the Geneva Accord. Now in obfuscating the work of the committee and intimidating witnesses, only exacerbates the issue. That is the point. Attacking a professor does not change that.”
Can you link the source of your evidence of that taking place?
March 6, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Why am I being spared the details of the difference of opinion at the Carr Institute? If I protect someone from professional slander and that person thanks me publicly, I suppose you would agree that is OK.
Now since we are colleagues ie work in the same area, if that person says something that supports me directly or indirectly, did he/she do it for cause or simply because we both happen to be involved professionally in the same area of inquiry – human rights and its abuses.
This so called research is just an attempted smear when you CONs haven’t got a leg to stand on.
And if I just happen to refer to some classified documents to let my fellow citizens know that there is a great cover-up going on, do you think I want in any way have the documents in hand or tell the RCMP who showed them to me?
Wait till next week and see just what kind of anti-Canadian behaviour you have condoned in your blind allegiance to conservative ascendency.
March 6, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Jmacd
Parliament has the constitutional right to have access to uncensored documents.
Utter drivel. Show me your precedent or STFU.
The security of our troops trumps your imagined constitution. Ever heard of “Peace, Order and Good Government”
March 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Than the coalition of parties that hold the majority of seats should follow through with contempt, and vote against the gov’t.
If they refuse to ACT on the allegations they keep making, they either don’t believe them or don’t really think it will be rewarded at the ballot box.
Either way, holding the gov’t to account only works if the opposition show up to vote. Sadly the Liberals are terrified on providing an alternative gov’t and will not challege the CPC gov’t on the Budget, Throne Speech.
March 6, 2010 at 6:36 PM
I really wish they would too. The Conservatives are getting sloppy without a real opposition platform and replacing them with a party with a non-platform isn’t much better. This country needs to parties with distinct platforms.
“Not Stephen Harper’s Conservatives” is NOT a platform.
March 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Bob
Show me the law.
March 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Imagined constitution!? Wow.
Here’s the law…
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&sbdid=ABBC077A-6DD8-4FBE-A29A-3F73554E63AA&sbpid=00578540-4AC4-4004-BBD5-4F1110B9DD73
March 6, 2010 at 6:18 PM
The House of Commons recognizes that it should not require the production of documents in all cases; considerations of public policy, including national security, foreign relations, and so forth, enter into the decision as to when it is appropriate to order the production of such documents.[327
You should read before opening your mouth.
March 6, 2010 at 7:18 PM
The House has already decided that it is appropriate for these documents to be produced. Your point is moot, since the text you quoted merely gives a list of situations where it may not be appropriate. Not that it isn’t appropriate, just that it may be.
Harper is in contempt right now, and I think I see why.
March 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM
So, how do Mr. Attaran’s crimes size up beside Harper’s? Ridiculous.
March 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM
“…Mr. Attaran’s crimes size up beside Harper’s? ”
What crimes are you referring to, we are talking about a potential bias as he has a previous, existing relationship.
Do you have evidence he does NOT have a potential for bias or relationship which is pointed out above?
March 6, 2010 at 4:39 PM
So, iggy has a record of hiding where money comes from, or goes. No wonder libs wanted him to be leader. He has no problem keep a name that involves his friend secret, but has no qualms about telling the taliban our secrets. Who was the donor iggy. In order for your friend to have credibility we have to know. If the PM says no torture took place why can’t you believe him, you expect us to believe you when you say said donor had no conflicts. Your word has not had much value lately. Somebody knows the truth and it will get out. What other possible coverups did you do while at Carr.
March 7, 2010 at 7:20 AM
Did PMSH ever release the names of all donors for his #CPC leadership bid? I would like to see a like to those persons!
March 6, 2010 at 4:45 PM
In Michael Ignatieff’s own words, the reason why he as irector of Carr, supported Attaran who would not disclose the source of his grant money (anonymous donor wanted to remain just that), and how Ignatieff solved the problem
‘ you have our assurances that we know this individual’s identity, that we have done due diligence upon the source of the money, and that it is not from the pharmaceutical industry nor from any source that would involve a conflict of interest. Neither AFM nor the anonymous donor have imposed any restrictions whatever on Dr. Attaran’s research. We trust that this addresses your concerns.’
To slander Attaran with your inferences that he should have been fired, when he was just protecting the name of a benefactor of an African NGO, is something you have to live with.
To use a personal acquaitance and friendship as a reason the facts quoted by Attaran couldn’t be correct, is nothing more than rumour-mongering.
March 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Some of us want full disclosure and the potential for BIAS. Are you going to repeat a friendship, personal or professional may have have ZERO effect in bias?
Really? Have you ever seen experts, witness cross-examined?
If you have EVER has an auto insurance claim, what are the preliminary questions they ask?
Do you know or have ANY relationship with the person involved in the accident. Why do you think they ask that?
March 6, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Wow! I just read some of those unredacted docs. Holy ****!!!
March 6, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Quick summary: 2 cabinet ministers, and some VERY senior Libs in on it. This is going to be a mess…
March 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Okay, this blog won’t let me post a link, but the documents APPEAR (I stress that word) to be the very ones. There are ways of authenticating official memoranda, and we are doing so now.
At this point in my first, superficial, reading, it appears that high levels of both the CPC and the LPC were involved in activities that are arguably war crimes.
March 6, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Oh ****, |I thought this was Adrian’s blog.
Oh well, I’ll break it here. That snivelling mama\s boy is too thick to reason with.
March 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Okay try this lin
March 6, 2010 at 5:32 PM
BTW, why is Ezra Levant’s pic at the top of this piece?
March 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM
No comments?
March 6, 2010 at 7:19 PM
Parliament makes laws and are not above the laws made.
Such as the Canada Evidence Act , Privacy Act and National Security/AntiTerrorism.
Releasing documents that contain any info protected by these laws (like info from the Red Cross or another Government) is prohibited.
Peter, venture over to Liblogs, they will gladly hear you out.
It’s a tangled web. And there isn’t a chance in h— that any info that is released will remain secret.
March 6, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Surre there is. Some of it …. er…. may be … classified information that never should have been classified to that level. What then?
March 7, 2010 at 7:22 AM
Why not get an opinion from the SCoC? CDNs could respect those opinions!
March 6, 2010 at 7:48 PM
So, what most people seem to be saying here is that Richard Colvin is lying?
March 6, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Colvin’s testimony was refuted by several people. Colvin did NOT provide proof of his allegations.
Most of us have said the allegations have not been backed up with actual evidence.
We have only have one set “field notes” to date regarding a single transfer that was followed up and was corrected.
The rest are simply allegations.
March 6, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Are some of these trolls students of professor Attaran? do they get extra marks for defending him?
If the professor is found out to be forcing his students to act as trolls , what punishment will there be from the University of ottawa?
Is there still ethics involved for student/professor relationships?
March 7, 2010 at 6:19 AM
Today I joined the over 100,000 people that have googled this professor, and found an article dated April 9, 2009, where a Federal Court denied his request for information on documents re detainees from 2002-2006. So, if he was denied, in 2009 access, where did he get all his info on what was in them when he was claiming his so called facts in years prior to that date. I could find nothing saying he had ever been granted such access.
I know that to get any info it costs money. Can he produce any proof that he paid for said information-cancelled cheque, CC statement, secret donor. Can he produce any proof that he was ever granted access. I am sure the govt would have sent him a letter or something.
Also wondering, how did he get his job in Ottawa, did he go thru any interviews, were others considered, did he jump the line to get it, were other more qualified profs passed over. Also lots of people have googled his tenure at the Ottawa university.
Wonder if he knows Dan Rather.
March 7, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Attaran has STATED publicly, not alleged,
that the Canadian Government deliberately partnered with torturers, and he has seen the proof.
This is yet another self induced world of trouble for Attaran,
Iffy can’t get him out of this one.
March 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM
You know, instead of vehemently turning yourselves into pretzels defending your hero, Harper, in going out of his way to hide documents on torture, why don’ t you instead lobby for him to show them? After all, don’t you neo-cons preach the sanctity of accountable and transparent gov’t? So why do you all go out of the way, even going in so far as to use questionable proof to justify St-Stevie Harper??
If as you all seem to think and try to sell, if these documents contain nothing incriminating, then lobby the Harpercons to produce them, to prove the ‘looney left’ and zany opposition wrong and do your happy dances while rubbing this in our faces?
Just sayin’
March 7, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Sorry CK, we are not bending over backwards to protect our hero. It is you and your ilk who are twisting into pretzels to protect iggy and his cohort. We are just exposing the fact that the professor is not telling the truth (either one of them).
He was denied access to said documents by a Federal Court in april 2009, so how did he have them from the beginning of his accusations. He has stated they could harm our national security. Therefore they should not be made public. And finally, who funded him at Harvard, and why. Poor iggy, this guy will take him down with him, just from insinuations. We learned how to do that from the media. Who stole the said documents and gave them to him.
With a new structuring of the committee, the terms can get to the truth, and all will be allowed to testify. The liberals might wish they had never opened this can of worms, over some terrorist being hit with a shoe.
But, think of the timing, about the time the coup was being hatched and an attempt to overthrow our government.
March 8, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Isn’t Amir Attaran the same dude who wants us all to pay so that he and his wife can have babies… somehow that is the latest ‘human right’ ?
What a *********.
March 8, 2010 at 9:18 AM
[…] Steve Janke had looked into the background of Dr Amir Attaran who alleges that detainees in Afghanistan were deliberately transferred so that torture could be used to extract information and that he has uncensored documents proving it and found out that Attaran happened to owe Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a big favour for defending him when he was about to be kicked out of the Carr Center (see here). […]