A Little Light, Please
David Mulroney has testified only that there was no direct and specific evidence of torture.
He could not answer that he was certain that none were tortured.
In fact, all that he and others trying to repute the testimony last week of Richard Colvin could offer was that this was an honorable war and that times and conditions were tough and we love our soldiers.
O.K.
All agreed.
But what's that got to do with the issue.
Do we or do we not hand over detainees knowing full well that they will be tortured?
Do we agree to and or condone torture under certain circumstances?
And if we do, what are those conditions and when do we give the green light and how?
I agree with the succinct Globe editorial of this morning.
"The Conservatives' preference for attacking the whistleblowers and deferring to military heroism rather than dealing with the actual charges is deplorable but not surprising.
Beyond what was known, and sat on, in 2006 and 2007, the core question remains: Were people detained by Canadians subsequently tortured by Afghan authorities? Canadians need to know."
2 comments:
Instead of pointing fingers why dont we ask ourselves why we would fight for a country that condones the torture of pows. Enough allready! Its a war and sometimes people behave badly.
I'm not sure I was watching the same testimony.
To ask for Mulroney to be able to answer, for certain, that torture occurred, is to misunderstand the chain of command and the conditions of turning over detainees.
He cannot possibly give such a guarantee as he would have to be in every room, during every interrogation, in every cell.
Impossible.
I think the whole thing is tempest in a teapot. Where are the tortured? Did any die? Were any maimed?
As for the Mop and Pail, they're editors have a long-standing practice of shooting at anything Conservative. IF there is approval for any, it's only after every other major paper in the country might have chimed in.
Post a Comment