Selective hearing - Macleans.ca
 

Selective hearing


 

So here, again, is what former ambassador David Sproule told the Afghanistan committee yesterday. And now here is what Defence Minister Peter MacKay reported to the House today in response to a question from the NDP’s Jack Harris.

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to some evidence that we heard just yesterday from respected former ambassador David Sproule with respect to this issue. He said: ‘First of all we never transferred any detainees that were captured by Canadian Armed Forces if there was any suggestion that there would be a substantial risk of torture, never did. We were confident there was not, otherwise we would not have transferred…’ He went on to say: ‘We were confident that based on information we had that no Canadian transferred detainee had ever been abused or mistreated.’ The member should contemplate that testimony.”


 

Selective hearing

  1. This is excellent news, Mr. McKay.. now, you don't mind if we look at the rest of the documents just to verify what you're saying, right?

  2. “Our reports for several years indicated that there was a high likelihood that torture was going on in Afghanistan detention facilities. However, we were confident that, based on information we had, that no Canadian transfer detainees had been abused or mistreated,” said David Sproule, Canada's ambassador in Kabul from October, 2005, to April, 2007."

    Culture of deceit, indeed.

    • I can't fathom how Ambassador Sproule believes the second statement in light of the first. Do the Canadian transferred prisoners get special treatment?

  3. "We have always been at war with Oceani…err, Eastas….damnit, where's my notes go?"

  4. "We were confident of our confidence."

  5. "‘First of all we never transferred any detainees that were captured by Canadian Armed Forces if there was any suggestion that there would be a substantial risk of torture…"

    Can you spot the weasel word? I knew that you could.

    Also: it's not enough for Canadians to have been passive in assessing received information, given the high likelihood that torture would take place. These people had a responsibility to *make sure*, and they failed in that responsibility. Heck, it sounds like they put more effort into making sure they didn't know what was happening.

  6. No one has ever accused the Harper party of being meticulously, or even remotely, accurate in their interpretations of the facts.

  7. What do you suggest we do for these fine young men who have sent back our fine young fighting men and women back in body bags?

    I for one am a wee bit more concerned about the safely of our own than worrying about the rights of insurgents.

    Using this issue as a political pawn is rather pathetic.

    • I'm more concerned that we're requiring our troops to violate the Geneva conventions and setting them up to be put on war-crimes trials.

      I'm also concerned about their safety over there, please tell me how allowing the enemy to feel if they'll be captured they might be tortured helps our troops safety?