The Commons: Too little, too late -

The Commons: Too little, too late

Peter MacKay admits Canada’s detainee transfer agreement isn’t perfect


The Scene. Bob Rae stood with nothing to say about Helena Guergis. Alas, the good news ended there.

Each day, he said, there were new allegations, new information about this country’s handling of detainees in Afghanistan. None of this is being resolved. So why not a public inquiry to sort it all out?

Here came the Defence Minister, quite ready for this. “Mr. Speaker, the key word in the honourable member’s question was ‘allegations,'” Peter MacKay said. “In fact what we knew yesterday was the witness before the committee made allegations, and when specifically asked about these allegations he said he had no specific evidence to support the claims. In fact it was the honourable member who posed questions to him that elicited that response. When specifically asked if he was even in the area when these alleged incidents occurred, he said ‘no.'”

This is, you might note, just about the same tack the government employed five months ago after Richard Colvin’s initial testimony. And that was, you might’ve noticed, not particularly successful in bringing this matter to a conclusion.

Mr. Rae tried again. “Mr. Speaker, it is not going to do,” he offered, somewhat exasperatedly, “to not recognize the seriousness of the allegations which were made by the individual yesterday.”

The Conservatives grumbled. The Liberal critic acknowledged their complaints.

“I am hearing a lot of heckling on the other side,” Mr. Rae said. “All I can say is that it simply will not do to dismiss it. The minister cannot dismiss Mr. Gosselin, Mr. Anderson and, with respect to the minister, continue to dismiss Mr. Colvin. There is no other place for these allegations to go except to a proper public inquiry. That is the only place these questions can be resolved. It is the only way it can be done.”

Mr. MacKay came back with another of this government’s refrains. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “nor can the honourable member or anyone continue to dismiss the testimony of senior members of the military and the diplomatic corps.”

This, of course, only served to prove Mr. Rae’s point. “Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because there are different accounts of the same event that we need to have some place to go to get the contradictions resolved,” he said, louder now.

Up came Mr. MacKay, sarcastic and caustic and dismissive, to once again ignore the proposal at hand.

The Liberals turned then to Ujjal Dosanjh to ratchet up the tone and volume. “Mr. Speaker, it is only before a judge that allegations turn into evidence, and that is why we cannot dismiss Mr. Colvin, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Gosselin, Mr. Mulgarai and a number of number of memos that all point to a systematic transfer of prisoners to risk of torture and for rendition, and allegations of innocent civilians being sent to the NDS for further questioning,” he testified. “Then yesterday there was an allegation of a teen being shot in the head. If General Natynczyk can call an inquiry overnight and has the courage to do that right away, then why this cowardice on the part of the government and not a public inquiry?”

Well then.

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the emotion on the part of the honourable member,” Mr. MacKay demurred. “However, again, the reality is we need specific allegations to take specific action. When that happens, Canadian Forces follow that evidence, each and every time. The chief of defence staff indicated that yesterday. With respect to testimony heard yesterday, and the honourable member was there, when specifically asked if he had firsthand accounts, proof that this happened, he said ‘no.'”

Mr. Dosanjh stood again to restate his points with more venom. And it was here, finally, that Mr. MacKay came close to offering an alternative to a public inquiry.

“Mr. Speaker, more rhetoric, more sound and fury, more unsubstantiated allegations that the honourable member himself, who is a lawyer, a former premier, is getting very good at. His theatrics are noted,” said Mr. MacKay, proceeding himself to get loud and furious and theatrical.

“I just wish,” he continued, the rest of his comments playing out rather predictably, “that for once we would get a question from the honourable member that would reflect an acknowledgement that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are continuing to do great work on behalf of our country, at great risk to themselves and their families. He should stop disparaging their name, their work, stop making allegations, insinuating that they are war criminals. That is despicable, detestable evidence.”

Right. So the choice then is this. On the one hand, we can proceed directly to a public inquiry. On the other, we can attempt to sort out the measurement Mr. MacKay has set out here. We could, for instance, survey all members of parliament as to how many members of the Canadian Forces each has hugged in the past year. Then we could determine which side of the House has averaged the most hugs per member. If the opposition’s managed more hugs, they get to have an inquiry. If the government’s proved huggier, we forget any of this ever happened. Deal?

Absent an agreement on this reasonable compromise, the questions persisted. With his last effort, Mr. MacKay dismissed a question from the Bloc’s Francine Lalonde. “Mr. Speaker, what is astounding to me is that repeatedly we see members opposite completely wrapping their arms around these broad statements of unspecified, unsubstantiated evidence,” he moaned.

He explained how his government had improved upon the “flawed transfer agreement” it inherited, a perfectly valid point save for the fact that this government first defended that agreement as sufficient.

“It is not perfect,” he concluded, “but it is far better than it was when we inherited this mission.”

Here then was an entirely reasonable answer. Or at least here was an answer that would have been entirely reasonable if the government had not previously claimed its record in this regard to be quite perfect. Or at least that you couldn’t prove its record wasn’t quite perfect.

And so we arrive at the answer just a few months, or perhaps a few years, too late. Missed opportunity that.

The Stats. Helena Guergis, 13 questions. Afghanistan, 11 questions. Access to Information, four questions. Foreign affairs, science, taxation and First Nations University, two questions each. Gas prices, foreign ownership, economy and Aboriginal affairs, one question each.

John Baird, 11 answers. Peter MacKay, 10 answers. Andrew Saxton, Ted Menzies and Chuck Strahl, three answers each. Lawrence Cannon, Deepak Obhrai, Mike Lake and Leona Aglukkaq, two answers each. Rob Nicholson and James Moore, one answer each.


The Commons: Too little, too late

  1. There's a face only a mother could love (or another turncoat)

  2. “I just wish,” he continued, the rest of his comments playing out rather predictably, “that for once we would get a question from the honourable member that would reflect an acknowledgement that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are continuing to do great work on behalf of our country, at great risk to themselves and their families. He should stop disparaging their name, their work, stop making allegations, insinuating that they are war criminals. That is despicable, detestable evidence.”

    The only thing despicable is Peter MacKay.

  3. Two comments from the Conservatives that I believe the media should not entertain anymore by even mentioning

    If you are not with us you are against the troops….
    If we had credible evidence we would call an inquiry……

    • On the point of credibility, it is interesting to compare the prisoner abuse scandal with the Guergis Affair.

      On the prisoner abuse saga, this government claims it will act upon credible evidence and, will dismiss whatever it deems incredulous.

      On the Guergis Affair, a mysterious call placed to the CPC by a private eye, with a morsel of guarded and unpublicized ''tip'' was all the credibility required for the Government to sack one of its Ministers out of cabinet and out of caucus.

      So, I ask, what is the measuring stick for credibility for this Government?

      • Whether it gets them into trouble, or out of trouble.

  4. Allegations, allegations.

    The government dismisses allegations from their own employees testifying before a government committee under oath as unsubstantiated, when the evidence to prove/disprove several of these allegations is in the governments possession.

    On the other hand, the government acts instantly to redact (prorogue?) their own Minister based on unsubstantiated allegations from a PI with unknown motives.

    It's fascinating to watch these two stories in parallel.

  5. So all the military brass is lieing, the cabinet ministers, the RCMP, the comanders and soldiers….all liars,
    but an interpreter who is po'ed because he can't get his family out of Afghanistan and who saw NOTHING, but heard others saw things,
    and is well prepared by his lawyer, Amir Attaran, Iffy's BFF,
    is the belieavble one here.

    time for an election.
    as Kinsella said, enough is enough

    • Warren was talking about another subject: Lady Helena and media reports about her, to be exact. I imagine you know that.

      • Ok Wilson, all Harper has to do is go the GG and call an election. Tell him to go ahead, if you are so keen for an election.

    • According to


      apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

      • Wilson is rather more spacious than specious — as in an argument full of holes.

  6. how bout peter McKay's new conquest: Helena of troy?

  7. Da proof is da proof is da proof that proves da proof, so if da proof is out there in libland bring da proof to da table and den da proof can be proven to be da proof, but without da proof there is no proof.
    Or just stone them and if they die that can be da prrof, cuz only the innocent could survice the liberal stones of truth.

  8. MacKay was obviously encouraged by the performance of the somewhat hyperbolic witness yesterday, dismissing the fact that it was Rae, not anyone from the government side, who nailed down what the witness actually witnessed first hand. MacKay even had the confidence to resurrect their 'why do you hate the troops' definition of the issue. 'mumbles' Baird was so bolstered by their belief that the witness had been discredited that he dropped that persona for his normal snarl and outrage. And everything is back to 'normal' in the House.

    On the Geurgis front, it seems that 'Magnum' PI is having some rather ginormous financial difficulties, which seems to cast some doubt on his credibility. But the question remains, who has been paying him to investigate Gillani for the past 19 months. Wonder if he was a victim of one of Gillani's 'pump and dump' operations.

  9. Of course the opposition are privately licking their lips that they now in their minds have evidence that the a soldier shot a teen. They have been trying to malign the military since this whole thing started and now they have that "evidence" that our soldiers behaved badly. This thing is going to end badly and rather than maligning the government the Canadian military are going to be the victims of this whole thing and their good work diminished.

    • Yes, hollinm, I'm afraid you are right. This Afghan detainee transfer issue and all else surrounding it, is no longer to come to the bottom of things, is ineed no longer a matter of trying to be objective, but is all about scoring points politically, done by the opposition parties and some members of the MSM alike. They know that if they keep hammering at allegations unfounded long and hard enough, the "texture' will linger, and that's all they are after.

      Shame on them

      • Well….you know how that can be solved… an inquiry. It seems to me that is the Conservatives aren't happy with how all of this is playing out they can hand over the documents to a judge and call the inquiry.

        Speaking of judge… about Iacobucci? any need for HIM anymore

      • If that's really what they're after, then why is the supposed chess-master continuing to give them ammunition by not having the inquiry and showing to all and sundry that the Harper's truly are innocent? Seems a fairly simple response. If they're innocent, shouldn't be but the work of a few moments to prove it, thus taking away the Liberal ammunition, yes?

        And hey, they could even go back like the Liberals have been asking for since the start, and start their public inquiry back in 2001.. that way if anything should come of it, they can return to their favorite rallying cry "They did it first!"

        How on earth can you say it's no longer about coming to the bottom of things, when that's what it's been about since the beginning, and that's what the Harperites have been refusing to do.. since the beginning. Are you being willfully blind?

        After all an allegation was certainly enough for the PM to ask for an RCMP investigation. It was also enough to claim he was asking for an Ethics Commissioner investigation (though perhaps he got lost on the way to her office). Why are serious allegations like these not enough for the PM to call for an official investigation into the discrepancies. Obviously somebody within this government is lying. Why is the government side afraid to take the steps to find out who? Surely you're not accusing Mr. Harper of liking liars within the gov't?

        I mean, just because you do doesn't mean he does.

    • It's easy to tell when the Harper party is floundering – their comment brigade turns up the Newspeak a few more notches.

    • Hollinm, why do you hate our troops?
      Exactly, makes as much sense as your messages do.

      • troopsftw is a cyber bully

    • Ah yes Bob Rae dreams of making life miserable for our troops, that's what he was elected to do after all.

      You make no sense at all. You're a detriment to our society.

    • Let the Libs keep at it! I can see the result now:
      Soldiers with guns, in the streets, in Canada, getting pissed at Liberals, using said guns on said Liberals in the streets, in Canada! (did I get the commercial right?)
      OH how delicious!

  10. Since this whole affair has morphed into a whodunnit whocares, is it possible to start a completely wild rumour that this Magnum PI that you speak off is actually a Double Agent and he was originally contracted by operatives within the Liberal Party of Canada to find dirt that could be linked to the PMO.

    Also, he`s out of the country now probably seeking politicial asylum in one of the former East Bloc countries.

    • Red Herring and appeal to the masses. Neither of which are valid rebuttals.

      • –Neither, it`s just me trying to inject a little rumour- humour into what is becoming a ludicrous story, or do you only understand Gilbert Gottfried humour……i`m still waiting for an apology for that one.

        • That's interesting. At the time you said "i'll let it go". Now you want an apology for it. So either you suffer from some multiple personality disorder.. aka, sock-puppetitis.. or you're relationship with the truth is so tenuous that you don't even remember what you said not a few days ago.

          Mr. Harper! Is that you?

          • Let it go… the sense that I wouldn`t report the abusive language.
            But I would also think that if someone wanted the incident to be forgotten…..well, do as you please.

  11. Habitant nails it…

    One rule of evidence in allegations for MacKay and Hillier – it seems!
    But quite another for Guergis!

    Really – Mr. Harper – doesn't it get increasingly difficult to keep up this dance on the head of a pin?

  12. It appears that some here think that if they can label Afghanis "mercenaries" then torturing these individuals or sending them to be tortured by others is ok……that is not a Canadian value. Perhaps it's time to set the record straight once and for all, it appears that our leaders need to be educated about Canadian values and that human rights are to be respected no matter where they conduct their business.

    • Well, alrighty then! Time for you to head to Afghanistan and spread our Canadian values around!
      You go girl!!!!

  13. The reactionary left will take up any cause,

    any cause,

    if they percieve it to be an attack on Harper. And so the most politically tone deaf move in Canadian political history goes on: the fierce advocacy that well outshines support for any group (the young, the sick in Canada, the poor, the downtrodden or political victims from despotic regimes), that group being … monsters dedicated to enslaving women, stoning gays and instilling this barbarism throughout the world.

    Reflexive anti Harper reaction had led the left to cry out in support of monsters.


  14. Cross checking the other teams "enforcer" into the boards a crime?

    Of course not, it's part of the game, he knows what he's getting into.

    Slapping a taliban captured murdering girls, and strapping bombs to down syndrome kids to blow them up in market places? (the slapping done by the victim citizenry)

    We must cry out from the roof tops to stop this horrific act, so says today's left.

    So very, very sad.

    • Good thing every last one of them brown people we pick up is guilty of something.

      They must be, they're brown, right?

      • It says alot about this blog that baseless charges of racism garners a plus two in ratings.

        Actually its worse than baseless. It's an intentional attack leveraging something that is horrid, knowing full well that such accusations cheapen the label, belittling real racism, thereby indirectly promoting racism. All to score a taudry drive by.

        • It's/ leveraging(?)taudry?


          Puh-leeeeeze learn how to spell.

          • Yes, because spelling errors somehow render his post false????
            Bitter old screwloose!

      • Hey, just for fun, try and guess the most common word derived the region known as the Caucuses (a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

        When I see radical murderous Islamic terrorists, I see an evil Ideology that has tenticles spread throughout the world… interesting that you see "brown people".

        How ironic that those who attempt to spread the "racist" label are often engaged in some serious deep seeded projection.

  15. It became a "war crime" the minute conservatives (the non-"progressive" and hence unworthy party to the leftist media) took power,

    and not a minute sooner.

    And of course the Genave Convention does not apply to terrorists or/mercenaries. But these are facts that get in the way of the anti Harper narrative. And so, notwithstanding these are crucial facts indeed, they stay safely out of any story on the issue.

    • Ok, have YOU actually read the Conventions?

      Third Geneva Convention, Article 3 states (paraphrasing) that anyone ("prisoner of war" or otherwise) who is captured because they surrendered or cannot continue to fight due to injury is entitled to be protected from "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture". Canada would be violating this provision if they were sending prisoners to the Afghanis and knew beforehand there was a strong possibility they would be tortured.

      Terrorist, mercenary, civilian, or otherwise, anyone who Canadian forces captured is entitled to these protections.

      But don't let these "facts" inconvenience the truth you seek. Truthiness reigns supreme these days.


        • Your "ummmmmmm…. no" tells me you put a lot of time into that very well thought and measured response.

          Care to elaborate on your thoughts? Please point out if I've misread the article in question. Or if I haven't, please tell me why you believe the Geneva Conventions are a bad thing and why we shouldn't abide by them.

          • Read Dwayne's post AGAIN………especially the following:

            "However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

            The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions. "

            The Taliban are arguably covered by the first part, and with guns/explosives tucked under their shirt, excludes them from the second part.
            You were saying????

          • Rather than blindly trusting Dwayne's post, maybe you should look up the actual articles he cites…

            He's misquoted Convention IV, Art. 64 – the text he quotes does not show up there. The actual article states that the Occupying Power's penal laws (i.e. Canada's laws) will remain in force, save for exceptional circumstances, which it outlines.

            Protocol 1, Art 44 is paraphrased correctly in that it defines who is and isn't a combatant. However, the article I quoted from the 3rd Convention applies to all who surrender willingly or cannot fight due to injury ("combatants" or otherwise). I would think all Afghanis Canada has captured alive fall into one of these two categories. Conv III, Art. 3 states all such persons cannot be subject to "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture". As such, handing them over to the NDS knowing they would likely be tortured violates this article.

            YOU were saying?

          • Speaking of misquotes………….Part 1

            Article 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

            READ THIS AGAIN! The penal codes of the OCCUPIED TERITORY SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE! To translate for the slow among us, Afghanistan calls the shots! Don't think NATO repealed anything.

            Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

            If by THEIR laws/customs THEY want to torture them, who am I to say otherwise???

          • I misread the quote regarding who's laws remain in effect – indeed it's Afghanistan's. Good catch.

            But your exact quote also proves my point: "may be repealed or suspended… where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention."

            We cannot respect Afghanistan's penal laws when they are in contravention to our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. And as per my comment below, condoning NDS torture of "protected persons" would be in violation of the convention.

          • Misquotes………Part2

            ARTICLE 3
            In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

            NATO forces…………the true DEFINITION of "an international character"

            (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
            To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

            READ THIS SLOWLY…….. "people taking NO ACTIVE PART in hostilities"

          • … and in case that isn't enough for you…

            Convention IV, Art. 4 defines "protected persons" as "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

            Convention IV, Art. 32 then explicitly states all such "protected persons" shall be protected from "…murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person…" and "… also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents."

            Your rebuttal, Gary?

          • More Misquotes Part 4

            Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

            Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

            READ AGAIN………..It refers to VISITORS caught in a conflict in ANOTHER COUNTRY than their own!

            GEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSHHHHHHHHH the mental gymnastics you guys go through to help out the scumbag Taliban! For what they did to the Buddhist Statues, that should be justification enough to collectively euthanise the lot of them!

  16. Dear Hollinm – if transgressions by individuals in the Armed Services occured – are you suggesting that the bad apples be swept under the carpet – to mix metaphores – in order to avoid risk of tainting the rest of the barrel?

    If so- then you sir – are as hypocritical as any of Harper's gang!

    • Well if the Liberals treatment of the Airborne was any indication, then they would be more than happy to disband the entire Armed Forces to get rid of a couple of bad apples.

      • Canadians approved of that.

        • WOW! What a GIANT LEAP in logic there!
          With that statement, all subsequent posts by you are rendered meaningless.
          You have lost any credibility with that one!

      • Speaking on behalf of one of our airbournes who served under two Liberal governments, they were given everything they needed except maybe a rest. The Somalian scandal brought this to light more than one thinks. My friend was there along with other missions. (I fought fires with him, he was one of the good ones) What he said to me quite simply was that scandal and the same units being used in too many missions were the main part of the reason for disbanding airbournes. Lets keep in mind that they were the first to arrive in the most dangerous of places. They saw a great deal of action. There was burnout. Combat fatigue. The use and reliance of experienced soldiers over and over too many times (as well as bad apples), even at higher levels of management. My friend understood why they were disbanded without too much problem. So do I as it was explained to me. Perhaps it might do you well to talk to someone who served with the airbournes to get a better perception of what really happened before assuming too much politically?

    • Wups, my bad, meant my earlier comment for D Mitchell

  17. I'm so glad I'm not in Canada since this story is becoming so tedious.

    • How unfortunate that you still come here and read it then.

      • well said.

  18. Nothing's perfect. Wake up Aaron. This is a war.

    • Sorry, but this story has legs and it continues to produce newsworthy events and questions.

      Consider that "the Generals", the Minister of Defence and the PM himself continually point to their "robust" transfer agreement when defending the handling of detainees. Every time the issue of prisoner treatment is raised, they say they toughened the transfer agreement by including oversight provisions that lets Canada check on the status of prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities.

      Now we have the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel Douglas Boot, senior military policeman, insisting that once a prisoner was transferred, he felt he had no authority to question the practices of the Afghan authorities. We don't find official evidence of abuse because we refuse to look in an official capacity.

      So we have politicians and senior military brass holding up the transfer agreement as proof of their good conduct … and the people on the ground — such as the Colvin and Boot — saying that the agreement has little weight in practice.

      This is a legit topic for continued inquiry.

  19. Where, oh where, is Inspector Clouseau when you need him?

    Let's start a bright new topic (having beaten this one to a quivering pulp). CLITERADECTOMY IN CANADA!!! scared, gentlemen?


    Or is it more comfortable talking about Big-breasted hookers who allegedly smoked Coca? Safer, boys, definitely safer.

    Now, you just have a nice TV dinner and forget anything I mentioned (clit, clit, clit – you'll never have to say 'was it good for you(?) again!!

    • Amnesty International believes………………………..HA HA HA!

  21. A fellow blogger puts an interesting spin on it. Thought I'd do a copy and paste:

    "The position of the Harper Government on this issue is very clear. None of Canada's detainees were tortured in Afghan jails.

    If you don't believe that, it was the fault of the previous government and the new Afghan agreement signed in 2007 fixed the problem.

    If you don't believe that, Canada has no legal responsibility and it's a problem for the Afghan government alone.

    If you don't believe that, the information on what really happened is classified for “national security” reasons.

    If you don't believe that, Canadian Forces have a right to defend themselves with any means necessary, the end justifies the means.

    If you don't believe that, human rights must sometimes be preserved by taking away the basic human rights of prisoners in penal systems. To make an omlette, one has to break a few eggs.

    If you don't believe that, most Canadians don't care anyway.

    If you care, you're on the side of the Taliban and you hate the troops."

  22. Misquotes………Part 3

    An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
    The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
    The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

    The RED Crescent WAS GIVEN access and all we heard from them was crickets chirping!

    • I'm not going to get into the wording in the 3rd convention further since upon further reading I think it's the 4th convention that has the strongest wording… which you have not attempted to deny or rebut.

      I post again:

      Conv IV, Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

      Conv IV, Art. 32. Art. 32. The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

      Insofar as I made no reference to Red Cross/Red Crescent, I don't see how that is a "misquote" on my part. Besides, the Red Cross's obligation is to report to the party detaining prisoners (i.e. Afghanistan), not third parties such as Canada.