The pivotal paperwork (III) - Macleans.ca
 

The pivotal paperwork (III)


 

Still pursuing an answer from National Defence for the redacted reference to abuse in that 2006 field report. In the meantime, the Liberals are using that document to question the claim to national security.

“Here we had two versions of the same document written by an unidentified sergeant – but the version redacted by the Conservatives scrubbed out the critical piece of information that Afghan National Police were known to have assaulted detainees ‘in the past,’” said Mr. Dosanjh.

“Stating that the ANP had previously assaulted detainees is not a threat to our national security, so why should we trust the government to redact any documents when it’s clear that what they’re going to delete has nothing to do with national security?”

(Reminder: Tomorrow at 1pm, I’ll be chatting about the year in Parliament.)


 

The pivotal paperwork (III)

  1. Does it really matter if you get an official response? It's like asking someone if two pictures of the same apple are of the same apple. The two documents have the same handwriting and the same dates and look exactly the same, minus the redaction. Why waste anyone's time at DND making them write a response that says "yes, the report is the same as itself"?

    • When attempting to trap weasels, it makes sense to be sure all the knots are tight.